
m 










mmmmm^^^^^ 



f^C'^'^f^i^f^^'^^^r^ 




5-:^ls_ 









PRESENTED 









JHrCK ^S*'- 



-^^^A^^^r' 












'inrrp^^^, ,.-,-''^1 z^'^*' 









i^.^^-'§ai 



■*ll8l«l^l^^ 



k A^ i^A - ^ ^ ^ '^^ - 






^?IK!I1: 






^g??;fcSfcrP:?^i 



■nnf. '- -n r-' r- C^ • ■ ... . , ,-- ;.^ . ■. 



i^^ilSi^ 



'^^«i?i?.. 



l'*^'*^^'^.'*,>-'> A : 



Mli^ 






•AN 



/ (p 2. 



INQUIRY 

INTp THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OE THE WORDS 

SHEOL, 
HADESj TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA 

ALL TRANSLATED 
IN THE COMMON ENGLISH VERSION. 



BY WALTER BALFOUR. 



SECOND EDITION. 



CHARLESTOWN, (Ms.) 

PRINTED BY GEORGE DAVIDSON* 
.1825. 



.:a 



^- 






-\<»' 



District of Massachusetts^ to wit : 

BE IT REMEMBERED, That on the thirtieth day of March, 
A.D. 1825, in the forty-tiinth year of the independence of the United 
States of America, Walter Ba.lfour, of the said District, hath 
deposited in this office the title of a book, the right whereof he claims 
as Author, in the words following, to wit : 
**An Inquiry into the scriptural import of the words Sheol, Hades, 

Tartarus, and Gehenna: all translated Hell, in the common English 

version. By Walter Balfour. Second edition." 

In conformity to the act of the Congress of the United States, en- 
titled, ''An act for the encouragement of learning, by securing the 
copies of Maps, Charts and Books, to the authors and proprietors of 
such copies, during the times therein mentioned ;" anil sUo to au act 
entitled ** an act supplementary to an act entitled *an act for the en- 
-courageraent of learning, by securing the copies of maps, charts and 
books, to the authors and proprietors of such, copies, during the times 
therein mentioned, and extending the benefits thereof to the arts of 
designing, engraving and etching, historical and other prints.' " 
JOHN W. DAVIS, 

Clerk of the District of Massachusetts. 



57473 



The Library 
OF Congress 

WASHINGTON 



4- . 

Cf CONTENTS. 



Introduction - - - - - v 

Notiee to the second edition . - - ix 

CHAPTER I. 

Sect. i. AU the passages of Scripture considered, in which 
Sheol occurs, translated pit, grave, and hell, in the 
, common version - - - 14 

Sect. ii. All the passages in which Hades occurs, consider- 
ed, rendered grave and hell in the common version 47 

Sect. hi. 2 Peter ii. 4. in which Tartarus occurs, consider- 
ed, rendered hell, in the common version 78 

CHAPTER n. 

Gehenna, uniformJy translated hell, in the New Testament, 

considered as a place of eternal punishment 92 

Sect. i. Remarks on Dr. Campbell's views of Gehenna 93 

Sect. ii. A number of facts stated, showing that Gehenna 
was not used by the New Testament writers to 
express a place of endless misery 114 

Sect. hi. All the passages in which Gehenna occurs, consid- 
ered - . - - 126 

Sect. iv. Additional facts stated, proving that Gehenna was 
not used by the sacred writers to express a place 
of endless misery - - . 199 

Sect, v. The argument arising from the Apocrypha and 
Targuras, in favour of endless misery in Gehenna 
or hell, considered - - 238 

Sect. vi. Objections considered - - ,- 268 

Sect. vii. Concluding remarks - - 3^4 



INTRODUCTION. 



The simple object of the author, in this Inqui- 
ry, is, to examine the foundation on which the 
doctrine of endless misery is built. This doc- 
trine rests on the fact or the falsehood that a 
place called hell^ in a future state, is prepared for 
the punishment of the wicked. In speaking, and 
preaching, and writing on the subject, this is al- 
ways presumed as true. It is taken for granted 
as indisputable. Most Universalists have conced- 
ed this to their opponents, and have contended 
not against the existence of such a place of mis- 
ery, but against the endless duration of its pun- 
ishment. All the principal writers on both sides 
of this question proceed on this ground, that there 
is a place of future punishment, and that the 
name of it is helL Winchester, Murray, Chaun- 
cey, Huntingdon and others, all admit that hell is 
a place of future punishment. Edwards, Strong, 
and others who opposed them, had no occasion 
to prove this, but only to show that it was to be 
endless in its duration. This Inquiry is princi- 



Vl INTRODUCTION. 

pallj for the purpose of investigating, if what has 
been taken for granted by the one party, and con- 
ceded by the other, is a doctrine taught in Scrip- 
ture. If the views I have advanced be false, it 
still leaves the question between Universalists and 
their opponents undisturbed. If they are found 
upon examination to be true, all dispute about 
endless misery in hell must of course cease, for if 
no such place exists, why dispute about the end- 
less duration of its punishment? 

The author is aware, that the subject he has 
undertaken to discuss, is both solemn and impor- 
tant, and that his sentiments, are not in unison 
with the principles and prejudices of the religious 
community. He is deeply sensible that much 
learning, and piety, and popular opinion, y.re 
against him. The doctrine he opposes is a fun- 
damental article of almost every religious creed, 
is taught weekly from almost every pulpit, and 
waitings fromthe press are numerous in its support. 

There are some, we hope many, who would re- 
joice to find it fairly and scripturally proved that 
hell is not a place of endless punishment. Their 
benevolence of disposition, and their inability to 
reconcile this doctrine w^ith the character of God, 
and with many parts of his word, all concur in 
leading them to wish that clear and decided evi- 
dence of this might appear. The following pages 
are an humble attempt at showing this. From 
siuch, the author expects a candid and patient 
hearing of the evidence he hns to produce. All 
he wishes, is, that his arguments and explana- 



INTRODUCTION. Vil 

tions of Scripture may be impartially examined, 
and his views received or rejected accordingly. 
The importance of the subject itself demands that 
it be candidly and impartially examined. Mm 
there are other considerations, which ought to 
excite universal attention to it. In the present 
day, various opinions are entertained as to the fu- 
ture punishment of the wicked, and that by men 
eminent for both learning and piety. Some hold 
to the doctrine of eternal punishment, some to 
its being of limited duration. Others think they 
are to be annihilated, and some hang in doubt, 
not having any fixed belief on the subject. If the 
Bible does teach us any thing certain on this sub- 
ject all ought to know it, and we think in no 
other way can this be ascertained, but by mutu- 
ally communicating our researches for candid con- 
sideration to the public, and let all men, through 
a free press, read and judge for themselves. To 
deter men from investigation, on a subject which 
involves their eternal condition, is of all inquisi- 
tions the worst. 

As to the sentiments advanced, the author 
makes no apology for them, nor does he claim 
any indulgence from his readers. He has ap- 
pealed to the Scriptures, and to this test he de- 
sires his views to be brought for examination. If 
they are found to be false, no one can wish more 
sincerely than himself to see their falsity detected. 
If true, they are of too much importance, and 
God's character is too much concerned, to be 
treated with indifference by judicious men. If 



Vlil INTRODUCTION. 

God never threatened men with endless misery 
in hell, it places his character in a very different 
light from that in which it is generally viewed. 

The attempt has been made to conduct this in- 
vestigation in a cool, rational, and scriptural man- 
ner and to express with plainness and candor the 
sentiments advanced, for the candid consideration 
of others. We have endeavored to state what we 
consider the truth, on this subject, and to state it 
in the spirit of the truth. Should any thing con- 
trary to this be discerned, we hope the reader will 
impute it to inadvertence and not to design. 

In the course of the work a number of quota- 
tions have been made from different authors. 
None of these have been taken from Universalist 
writers. We have purposely avoided this, and 
have availed ourselves of quotations from those, 
who, while opposed to the views advanced, have 
conceded many things in favor of them. The 
testimony of an opponent is always reckoned val- 
uable. Such testimonies might have been much 
increased if it had been necessary. But we rest 
the truth of the views advanced, on evidence and 
facts which we have drawn from Scripture. 

The path in which the author has trod, in this 
Inquiry, has been new to himself, and but little 
frequented hy other writers, of which he has any 
knowledge. That we have not, in any instance^ 
turned aside from the path of truth, in any of our 
statements, we do not affirm. It w^ould be sur- 
prising if we had not, considering the disadvan- 
tageous circumstances, for accurate'thinking and 



INTR,0DUCTION. }K 

writing, in which we have brought this subject 
forward* All we can say, is, that we have stud- 
ied to be accurate in our statements, and to be 
guided by the Scriptures in the exphmations we 
have given. 

S'hould any trifling inaccuracies be pointed out 
by any one who dislikes the views which I have 
advanced, my time and habits of thinking forbid 
my promising him any reply. Any answer, meet- 
ing the body of the evidence produced, shall be at- 
tended to, either by acknowledging my error, or by 
defending what 1 have written. That the truth 
of God on this, and every other subject, may be 
made manifest and prevail, is the desire of the au- 
thor, whatever may become of his sentiments. 



NOTICE TO THE SECOND EDITION- 

It has been suggested, by many who have read 
the " Inquiry," that it ought to be printed in a 
form, and sold at a price, suitable to a larger class 
of readers. A second edition being called for, 
the author has availed himself of this suggestion, 
and would state the following things in regard to 
both editions for the information of his readers. 

1st, The present edition, printed in a different 
form, and reduced to one half the price, is for 
substance th€ very same as the first. All that 
part of the work, containing the arguments and 
facts, proving that Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and 
Gehenna, do not refer to a place of endless mis- 
ery, is the same as in the first edition. The au- 



INTRODUCTION. 



thor has seen no reason to change his opinior^y 
and therefore has made no change in its matter. 
Any alterations made, are merely verbal, which 
require no particular notice, and are rather an 
improvement of the work. Being more deeply 
concerned than even his readers, that the evidence 
adduced should not be impaired, he has been 
scrupulously careful that nothing of this kind 
should be omitted, or even abridged, to the injury 
of the book. 

2d, To reduce the size and price of the pres- 
ent edition, the following are all the principal al- 
terations, which were found necessary.— The long 
quotation in regard to the Targums, and some 
others of a critical nature, which were deemed of 
little value to most readers, are here abridged, 
and the latter in one or two instances are entire- 
ly omitted. In every instance how^ever, the books 
from whence such quotations were taken are re- 
ferred to, so that any who are inclined may con- 
sult them. The two last sections, containing an- 
swers to objections and concluding remarks, in 
some places have also been abridged. These, 
with some reflections, and an occasional superflu- 
ous sentence or expression not essential to the 
argument being expunged, constitute the altera- 
tions in this from the first edition. The author 
would however assure his readers that nothing 
has been expunged or abridged of the evidence 
and ar«:ument w hich it contained. 

It is known generally that during the last wni- 
ter Mr. James Sabine announced in the Boston 
papers his intention to refute the " Inquiry," if a 



INTRODUCTION. XI 

suitable place for that purpose was afforded him. 
When none of his orthodox friends volunteered 
their pulpits, and the Methodists after granting^ 
withdrew theirs, the Universalist Society in 
Charlestown unanimously voted him the use of 
their place of worship for that purpose. This 
unexampled instance of candour, liberality, and 
unfettered inquiry,^ ought to be universally known 
for universal imitation- Mr. S. accepted their 
invitation, and before a crowded^ but attentive au- 
dience, delivered six lectures, which have since 
been published. The public can judge if they 
are any refutation of the '^ Inquiry." So far as 
it was concerned, few I presume would blame 
me for silence, for we believe it is generally al- 
lowed, that his discourses do not touch the facts 
and arguments of my book* Indeed he does 
not advocate endless hell torments, but attempts 
to establish a future retribution, which, if he had 
established, would leave the book unaffected. I 
should therefore have deemed a reply to his dis-, 
courses unnecessary but for the following reasons. 
1st, The subject of discussion, is of solemn 
and deep interest to all men. If therefore any 
additional light can be shed on it, by a candid 
and serious appeal to the Scriptures, it ought to 
be done. Since the doctrine of endless hell tor- 
ments seems to be given up as indefensible by 
Mr. Sabine, yet if his doctrine of future retribu- 
tion be a Scriptural one, it ought to be examined 
and believed by us all. What is truth, respect- 
ing the eternal destinies of men, is a question of 
110 ordinary concern. I am willing therefore to 



^n INTRODUCTION. 

follow him to his own groimd and examine his 
evidence for a future retribution. 

2d, Since the " Inquiry" was published, and 
Mr. Sabine's attempt at an answer to it, I have 
often and seriously turned my thoughts to this 
important subject. But so far from being con- 
vinced that the views given in my book are un- 
scriptural, considerable additional evidence has 
appeared of their truth. We have entered into a 
further investigation of the texts of Scripture 
which he controverts, together with others by 
which he attempts to prove a future retribution. 
This investigation, not only confirms in the 
strongest manner all we have advanced in the 
•' Inquiry," but proves fatal to his doctrine. If 
he judged it best in answering the ''Inquiry," to 
abandon the doctrine of endless hell torments, 
and only advocate a future retribution, it will now 
be found, that both must be given up as unscrip- 
turah If what we have to advance in answer to 
Mr. S's discourses be true, and it will be difficult 
to prove it false, some entirely new ground must 
be taken by him to isupport future punishment 
in another world, either for soul or body, tempo^ 
rary or eternal. Such are the reasons which in- 
duce us to make any reply to Mr. S's discourses* 
An answer may therefore be expected to them in 
a few weeks in a separate pamphlet. This we 
have deemed the fairest method, for had our re- 
ply been added as an appendix to this edition, 
those who purchased the first, must also purchase 
this to obtain it. 



AN INQUIRY 



INTO THE SCRIPTURAL IMPORT OE THE WORDS 



^HEOL, HADES, TARTARUS, AND GEHENNA. 



CHAPTER I- 



fVORDS are signs of men's ideas, and were med 
as such by the inspired writers, as they must be by 
every man, who speaks and writes to be understood. 
To understand their writings, it is necessary to ascer- 
tain what sense they affixed to their words, and this 
we can only learn, by consulting Scripture usage of 
them. That men have attached ideas to some Scrip- 
ture words and phrases which they never meant to 
convey by th^m, we think will not be denied. That 
this not the case with the words Skeol^ Hade's^ Tarta- 
rus and Gehenna^ which we propose to examine, ought 
not to be taken for granted. We shall therefore at» 
tempt a consideration of all the places where these 
words occur, and endeavour to ascertain if by any 
of them the Spirit of God intended to convey the idea 
of a place of endless misery^* 
■2 



SECTION I. 

ALL THE PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE CONSIDERED, IN WHICH 
SHEOL OCCURS, TRANSLATED PIT, GRAVE, AND HELL, IN 
THE COMMON VERSION. 

THE idea which most Christians have attached to 
the word hell^ is a place of eternal punishment for all 
the wicked* Wherever they meet with this word, in 
reading their Bibles, it calls up the idea of such a 
place of punishment, and by many it will be deemed 
the worst of heresies^ to give it any other signification. 
The cry of heresy ought not, however, to deter us from 
candidly inquiring "what is truth?" on this deeply 
interesting question. I have ventured to inquire what 
saith the Scfiptures on this subject, and would submit 
the result of my investigations for candid considera- 
tion. 

It is well known that there are four words in the 
original languages'^of the Bible, which are all trans- 
lated by the word hell^ in our common English ver- 
sion. These are Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, and Ge- 
henna. The two first of these words are sometimes 
translated grave, asw^ell as hell; the two last always 
hell in the common translation. 

There is one fact, which deserves attention at the 
outset, of which many readers of the Bible are igno- 
rant. The fact I allude to, is, that the word hell 
, does not occur once in all the Old Testament, where it 
means a place of eternal misery for the wicked. The 
fact is indisputable; no man can doubt it who will 
take the trouble to examine this matter for himself. 
Nor is this a novel opinion, or a new discovery of 
mine. The fact is attested by some of the ablest 



AN INQUIRY iNTO THE WORD SHEOL. IB 

writers, who believed in this doctrine. Lest my ve- 
racity may be doubted on this point, I w^ill quote their 
w^ords. Dr. Campbell, in his 6th Preliminary Dis- 
sertation, p. 181, thus writes: — "As to the word^xeTj^c, 
which occurs in eleven places of the New Testament, 
and is rendered hell in all, except one, w^here it is 
translated grave^ it is quite common in the classical 
authors, and frequently used by the Seventy, in the 
translation of the Old Testament. In my judgment it 
ought never in Scripture to he rendered hell, at least in 
the sense wherein that word is now universally understood 
hy Christians. In the Old Testament, the correspond- 
ing word is ^i«i5^ Sheol^ which signifies the state of the 
dead in general, without regard to the goodness or 
badness of the persons, their happiness or misery. 
In translating that word, the Seventy have almost in- 
variably used d^Yig. This word is also used some- 
times in rendering the nearly synonymous words or 
phrases "ra hor and in ••^a« ahne hor^ the pit y^nd stones 
ofthepit^ niD by tsal moth^ the shades of deaths ncn dumeh^ 
silence. The state is always represented under those 
figures which suggest something dreadful, dark and 
silent, about which the most prying eye, and lis^tening 
ear, can acquire no information. The term d^vig 
Hades^ is well adapted to express this idea. It was 
written anciently, as we learn from the poets (for 
what is called the poetic, is nothing but the ancient 
dialect) onSrig^ ah ex, privativo et uS'co video^ and signifies 
obscure, hidden, invisible. To this the word Helium 
its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded. 
For, at first, it denoted only what was secret or con- 
cealed. This word is found with little variation of 
form, and precisely in the same meaning, in all the 
Teutonic dialects.* 

*• See Junius' Gothic Glossai»y, subjoined to the Codex Argentews? 
on the word hulyan. 



16 AN UraUIRY INTO 

" But though our word hell^ in its original signiftca- 
tion, was more adapted to express the sense of d^yjg 
than of ynvfUy it is not so now. When we speak as 
Christians, we always express by it, the place of the 
punishment of the wicked after the general judgment, 
as opposed to heaven, the place of the reward of the 
yighteoHS. It is true, that in translating heathen poets, 
we retain the old sense of the word hell^ which an- 
swers to the Latin orcus^ or rather infernus^ as when 
we speak of the descent of Eneas, or of Orpheus, into 
htlL Now the word inftrnus^ in Latin, comprehends 
the receptacle of all the dead, and contains both elysi- 
um^ the place of the ble&sed, and Tartarus^ the abode 
of the miserable. The term inferni^ comprehends all 
the inhabitants, good and bad, happy and wretched. 
The Latin words infernus^ and inferni bear evident 
traces of the notion that the repository of the souls of 
the departed is under ground. This appears also to 
have been the opinion of both Greeks and Hebrews, 
and indeed of all antiquity. How far the ancient 
practice of burying the body may have contributed 
to produce this idea concerning the mansion of the 
ghosts of the deceased, I shall not take upon me to 
say ; but it is very plain^ that neither in the Septuagint 
version of the Old Testament^ nor m the Neio^ does the 
word ci^yjg convey the meaning which the present English 
word HELL, in the Christian usage^ always conveys to oiir 
minds. 

" It were endless to illustrate this remark, by aa 
enumeration and examination of all the passages in 
both Testaments wherein the word is found. The 
attempt would be unnecessary, as it is hardly now 
pretended by any critic, that this is the acceptation 
of the term in the Old Testament. Who, for exam- 
ple, would render the words of the venerable patri- 
arch Jacob, Gen. xxxvii. 35^ when he was deceived 
by his sons into the opinion that his favourite child 



THE WORD SHEOL. V7 

Joseph had been devoured by a wild beast, / zoill go 
down to hell to my son mourning? or the words which 
he used, ch. xlii. 38. when they expostulated with 
him about sending his youngest son Benjamin into 
Egypt along with them. Ye will bring down my gray 
hairs with sorrow to hell ? Yet in both places the word, 
in the original, is Sheol^ and in the version of the Sev- 
enty, f/a^e5. I shall only add, that in the famous 
passage from the Psalms, xvi* 10. quoted in the Acts 
of the Apostles, Acts ii. 27. of which I shall have oc- 
casion to take notice afterwards, though the word is 
the same both in Hebrew and in Greek, as in the two 
former quotations, and though it is in both places ren- 
dered hell in the common version, it would be absurd 
to understand it as denoting the place of the damned, 
whether the expression be interpreted literally of 
David the type, or of Jesus Christ the antitype, agree- 
ably to its principle and ultimate object." — I have 
made this long quotation from Dr. Campbell at the 
outset of my remarks for several reasons. 

1st, It shows that Sheol of the Old Testament, and 
Hades of the New, both translated by our English 
word hell, do not signify a place of endless misery 
for the wicked, but simply the state of the dead, with- 
out regard to the goodness or badness of the persons, 
their happiness or misery. It follows of course, that 
wherever those two words are used in Scripture, 
though translated by the word hell, we ought not to 
understand such a place of misery to be meant by 
the inspired writers. Inattention to this has led to a 
"misunderstanding of many parts both of the Old and 
New Testaments. 

2d, It establishes also that our English word helL 
in its primitive signification, perfectly corresponded 
to Hades and Sheol, and did not, as it now does, sig- 
nify a place of endless misery. It denoted only what 
was secret or concealed. This v/e shall show more 
2* 



18 AN INQUIRY INTO 

fully afterwards. What we wish to be noticed here, 
is, that people generally have connected tiie idea of 
endless misery with the word hell, but it is evident 
that it is a very false association. It is beyond all 
controversy, that the word Tie// is changed from its 
original signification to express this idea. 

3d, It is also obvious from the above quotation, and 
from other authors which might be quoted, that Gehen- 
na is the word which is supposed to express the idea 
of a place of endless misery. The correctness of 
this opinion we shall attempt to consider afterwards. 
At present it need only be observed, that if the opin- 
ion be correct, it is somewhat surprising that the En- 
glish language had no word to express such a place of 
misery, but the word hell must assume a new sense to 
accommodate it with a name. 

4th, I shall only add in regard to the statements, 
made in the above quotation, that they are not opin- 
ions, broached by a Universalist, which he found to 
be necessary, in support of his system. No : they are 
the statements of Dr. Campbell, who was not a Uni- 
versalist. Nor are they his own individual singular 
opinions, but are now admitted as correct by learned 
orthodox critics and commentators. In Mr. E. J. 
Chapman's critical and explanatory notes, we find 
the following remarks on Acts ii. 27. '''Thou wilt 
not leave my soul in hell eis adou^ neither wilt thou 
suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.' This is a 
quotation from Psalm xvi. 10. It is evident that the 
primary reference of the words was to David, and 
- equally so, from St. Peter's application of them in Acts 
ii. 31. that they are referrible principally and finally 
to Jesus Christ. The question immediately arises — in 
what sense are they in this appplication to be under- 
stood ? That Christ should not be left in hell, is not at all 
iricredible. But the thing implied in the declaration, 
viz. that Christ, or Christ's soul, was once there^ creates 



THE WORD SHEOL, 16 

the difficulty. The following remarks may be useful^ 
especially to common readers : — There are two 
Greek words which are translated hell — Hades and 
Gehenna. But their precise signification is very dif- 
ferent. Hades or Ades^ is derived from a and eideo^ 
and means of course, invisible. It is synonymous 
with the Hebrew Sheol. Hades denotes sometimes 
the grave^ but more commonly the state of the dead^ 
or the region and state of separate spirits after death ; 
whether that state be a state of happiness or of misery./ 
To the rich man, Luke xvi. 23. Hades was a state of 
misery. We cannot, however, infer that he was in mis- 
ery merely because he was in Hades^ for Lazarus was 
there also. But that the rich man was in misery, 
we infer solely from other circumstances ; other ex- 
pressions — such as 'being in torments' — 'I am tor- 
mented in this flame,' &c. — They were both in Hades^ 
i.e. the state or region of departed spirits ; but to 
the one Hades was 'joy unspeakable'-— to the other, 
' everlasting burnings.' But neither Sheol nor Hades 
have^ in themselves considered^ any connexion with future 
punishment^ as will he evident to any one who will examine^ 
in the Hebrew Bible and in the Septuagint translation^ the 
following passages^ viz. Gen. xlii. 38. Isa. xiv. 9. and 
xxxviii. 10. See also. Rev. xx. 14. But Gelimna 
denotes properly the place of torment. It is derived 
from the Hebrev/ words Ge and Hinnom^ i.e. the val- 
ley of Hinnom. See Josh. xv. 8. In this valley, 
otherwise called Tophet, the idolatrous Israelites caus- 
ed their children to pass through the fire to Moloch. 
2 Kings xxiii. 10. &c. From i^ts having been the 
place of such horrid crimes and abominations and 
miseries, it came to pass, in process of time, that the 
word Gehenna was made to signify the future state of 
sin and punishment. If now the inquiry be, in what 
sense Christ went to hell, or in other words, what is 
meant by Acts ii- 27. the verse before us, the reply 



20 AN INQUIRY INTO 

is — all that is meant by it is, that he was for a sea- 
son, not ill Gehenna^ the place of torment, but in Hades, ^ 
the state of the dead, or region of departed spirits. 
And in that state neither his soul nor body was left, 
but he rose again and triumphed over the grave." 

I have deemed it of some importance to avail my- 
self of such concessions from these authors, to show, 
that neither Sheol of the Old Testament, nor Hades 
of the New, means a place of endless punishment. 
How the last quoted author could say, that Hades 
was to the rich man, "everlasting burnings," and in 
the very next sentence add, " but neither Sheol nor 
Hades have, in themselves considered^ any connexion 
with" future punishment," is to me altogether inex- 
plicable. If neither Sheol nor Hades^ has any con- 
nexion with future punishment, how could Hades be 
to the rich man, "everlasting burnings?" As to the 
correctness of the opinion that Hades is the " region 
and state of separate spirits" and " everlasting burn- 
ings," see Sections 2d and 3d. 

5th, If the doctrine of eternal misery was not re- 
vealed under the Old Testament dispensation, it fol- 
lows, that it, as well as life and immortality, was 
brought to light by the Gospel. If it be allowed that 
this doctrine was not revealed under the Mosaic dis- 
pensation, it is very evident that persons could not be 
moved with fear, to avoid a punishment, concerning 
v;hich they had no information. If it be said, that it 
was revealed, we wish to be informed in what part of 
the Old Testament this information is to be found. 

It seems then to be a conceded point, that neither 
Sheol of the Old Testament, nor Hades of the New, 
so often translated hell, means, as is commonly be- 
lieved, the place of eternal punishment for the wick- 
ed. From the concessions made in the foregoing 
quotations, most people w^ould deem it proper for me 
to decline the labour which Dr. Campbell calls end- 



THE WORD SHEOL. 21 

less^ to illustrate by an enumeration of all the passages 
in both Testaments, that these words do not signify 
this place of punishment for the wicked. Unwilling 
however, to take this matter on trust, I have submit- 
ted to this endless labour, and shall proceed to bring 
forward all those passages. 

The word Sheol in the Hebrew of the Old Testa* 
ment, occurs, sixty-four times* It is rendered by 
our translators, three times pit^ twenty-nine times 
grave^ and thirty-two times helL 

1st, Let us attend to the texts in which it is trans- 
lated pit. In Numb. xvi. 30, 33, it occurs twice. 
Speaking of Korah and his company, they are said 
to go down, '^ quick into the pit." What is said in 
these two verses, is explained by the earth opening her 
mouth and swallowing them up* Had Sheol been trans- 
lated hell here, as in other places, according to the 
common acceptation of this word, Korah and his 
company went down alive, soul and body to the 
place of eternal misery. But this would be contrary 
to commoa belief, for it is allowed, that men's bodies 
do not go there until the resurrection. All that 
seems to be meant in this account is, that they were 
swallowed up alive, as whole cities have been by an 
earthquake, and that without any reference to their 
eternal condition. This, 1 presume, is the view most 
people take of this judgment of God upon those men*. 
Job xvii. 16, is the only other text in which Sheol' is 
rendered pit. It is said, speaking of men, — '*they 
shall go down to the bars of the pit." What is meant, 
is explained in the very next words, — "when our 
rest together is in the dust," As it would be a mere 
waste of time to make any further remarks to show 
that Sheol translated pit in these texts, does not refer 
to a place of eternal misery, let us, 

2dly, Bring to view all the texts in which this 
word io translated grave. The first three places then$ 



22 AN INQUIRY INTO 

in Vi^hich it occurs, are, Gen. xxxvii. 35.; xlii. 38r 
and xliv. 29. noticed already by Dr. Campbell in 
the above quotation. Had Sheol been translated 
hell in these texts, as it is in many others, Joseph 
would be represented as in hell, and that his father 
Jacob expected soon to follow him to the same place* 
In like manner, it would make Hezekiah say, '^ I 
shall go to the gates of hell." And to declare, — 
"hell cannot praise thee." See Isai. xxxviii. 10, 18* 
I may just notice here, that, if those good men did 
not go to hell, it will be difficult to prove from the 
Old Testament, that Sheol or hell, was understood to 
mean a place of eternal misery for the wicked. But 
further, let Sheol be translated hell, instead of grave 
in the following texts, and we think all will allow, 
that the idea of a place of future misery, was not at- 
tached to this word by the Old Testament writers. 
Thus translated, it would make Job say, chap. xvii. 
13,—" if I wait, hell is mine house." And to pray, 
chap. xiv. 13, — "O that thou wouldst hide me in 
hell." It would also make David say. Psalm Ixxxiii. 
3^, — "My life draweth nigh unto hell." And to com- 
plain, Ps. vi. 5, — " in hell who shall give thee thanks." 
To translate Sheol hell, would represent David as 
a monster in cruelty, in the following passages. 
Thus, speaking to his son Solomon, and just before 
his death, he says to him concerning Joab,— " let not 
his hoar head go down to hell in peace." And con- 
cerning Shimei, he adds, — " but his hoar head bring 
thou down to hell with blood." See 1 Kings, ii. 6, 
9. No fault is generally found with David, as to Jo- 
ab, mentioned in verse 6(h, for his crimes justly sub- 
jected him to death. But David's conduct in regard 
to Shimei, verse 9ih, has been often blamed. The 
following quotation from the Missionary Magazine, 
vol. vii. p. 333, removes all difficulty from this pas- 
sage, which has afforded sport to iqfidels. It is there 



IHE WORD SHEOL. 2d 

said,-^" David is here represented in our English 
version as finishing his life with giving a command to 
Solomon to kill Shimei ; and to kill him on account 
of that very crime, for which he had sworn to him 
by the Lord, he would not put him to death. The • 
behaviour thus imputed to the king and prophet, 
should^be examined very carefully, as to the gro?ind 
it stands upon. When the passage is duly consider- 
ed, it will appear highly probable that an injury has 
been done to this illustrious character^ It is not un- 
common in the Hebrew language to omit the negative^ 
in a second part of a sentence, and to consider it as 
repeated, when it has been once expressed, and is 
followed by the connecting particle. The necessity 
of so very considerable an alteration, as inserting the 
particle not, may be here confirmed by some other 
instances. Thus Psalm i. 5. 'The ungodly shall 
not stand in the judgment, nor (the Hebrew is and^ 
signifying and not) sinners in the congregation of the 
righteous.' Psalm ix. 18.; xxxviiii i. ; Ixxv, 5. 
Prov, xxiv. 12. If, then, there are many such in- 
stances, the question is, whether the negative, here 
expressed in the former part of David's command, 
may hot be understood as to be repeated in the latter 
part? ahd if this may be, a strong reason will be ad- 
ded why it should be so interpreted. The passage 
will fuh thus: 'Behold, thou hast with thee Shimei, 
who cursed me ; but I sw^afe to him by the Lord, 
saying, I will not put thee to death by the sword. 
Now, therefore, hold him not guiltless, (for thou art 
a wise man, and knowest what thou bughtest to do 
unto him,) but bring not down his hoary hc^ad to tl e 
grave with blood.J Now% if the language itsHf will 
admit this construction, the sense thus" given to the 
sentence derives a very strong support from the con- 
text. For, how did Solomon understand this charge ? 
Did he kill Shimei in consequence of it? Certainly 



24 ^w INQUIRY Into 

he did not. For, after he had immediately com- 
manded Joab to be slain, in obedience to his father, 
he sends for Shimei, and, knowing that Shimei ought 
to be well watched, confines him to a particular spot 
in Jerusalem for the remainder of his life. 1 Kings, 
ii. 36—442. See Ke7inicotfs Remarks, p. 131." Those 
who wish to see this verse noticed at considerable 
length, may consult the Christian's Magazine, vol. i. 
p. 172—181. 

But to return from this digression : David says^ 
Psalm xxxi. 17, — "let the wicked be ashamed, and 
let them be silent in hell." In some of the preceding 
texts w^e read of persons going down to hell, and in 
the following we read of persons being brought up 
from it. Thus, 1 Sam. ii. 6, — '^the Lord killeth and 
maketh alive : he bringeth down to hell and bringeth 
up.'' And, again, Psalm xxx. 3,— "O Lord, thou 
hast brought up my soul from hell." But w^hat this 
means is explained in the next words, — " thou hast 
kept me alive, that I should not go down to the pit." 
[n these passages the langtlage is evidently figurative. 
3t is evident, that by hell could not be meant a place 
of endless tnisery, nor could these passages be under- 
stood literally; for surely David, nor no one else, 
was ever brought down to such a place, and after- 
Hvards brought up from it. We find Job says, ch. 
vii, 9,-^" he that goeth down to hell shall come up 
no more," which contradicts what was said in these 
passages about persons being brought up from hell. 
But what Job means, is plain from the next words, 
*Vhe shall no more return to his house." But fur- 
ther, if Sheol w^as translated hell instead of grave in 
the following texts, it would make the sacred writers 
represent all men as going to hell. Thus it is said. 
Psalm Ixxxix. 48,—" what man is he that liveth and 
shall not see death ? shall he deliver his soul from 
the hand of hell?" Notwithstanding this, David 



THE WORD SHEOL. 25 

says, Psalm xlix. 15,—." But God will redeem my soul 
from the power of hell." By comparing these two 
last texts, it is evident that ''hand of hell," and 
*'power of hell," mean the same thing. We have 
also a proof, that Sheol did not mean a place of eter- 
nal misery, but the state of the dead ; for death and 
Sheol are words used to express the same idea. Be- 
sides, we know for certainty, that no man can deliv- 
er himself from the power of death, or hand of the 
grave; but surely all men do not go to hell, or a 
place of eternal misery? Again: if Sheol is trans- 
lated hell instead of grave, it makes Solomon say, 
Eccles. ix. 10, — 'Hhere is no work, nor device, nor 
knowledge, nor wisdom in hell whither thou goest." 
But are there none of these things in the place of 
eternal misery ? To answer this in the negative, 
would be to contradict common opinion on the sub- 
ject. But this can be affirmed concerning the state 
of the dead, and shows that Solomon, by Sheol, did 
not understand a place of endless misery, but this 
state, or, as Job calls it, " the house appointed for all 
the living." Here " there is no w^ork, nor device, 
nor knowledge^ nor wisdom." 

But further; if Sheol indeed means hell^ in the 
common sense of the word, very strange statements 
are given us in the following passages. It is said, 
Prov. i. 12, — "Let us swallow them up alive as 
hell." And in Job xxiv. 19. it is added, — "drouth 
and heat consume the snow waters; so doth hell 
those who have sinned." Again, Psalm xlix. 14,— 
" like sheep they are laid in hell; death shall feed 
on them ; and the upright shall have dominion over 
them in the morning; and their beauty shall con- 
sume in hell from their dwelling." And, Psalm cxli. 
7, — " our bones are scattered at hell's mouth as when 
one cutteth and cleaveth wood." Now, I ask every 
candid man, whether all these statements do not per- 
3 



26 AJSf INQUIRY INTO 

fectly agree with understanding Sheol to mean the 
grave, but are contrary to truth, to understand them 
of hell, or a place of eternal misery. Such an idea 
does not appear to have entered the minds of the 
Old Testament writers. Does any man believe that 
people's bones are scattered at the mouth of the place 
of eternal misery? and does this place consume per- 
sons in it as drought and heat consume the snow 
waters ? 

It is not generally noticed by most readers of the 
Bible, that our translators have rendered Sheol both 
grave and hell in the same passage, and speaking of 
the same persons. An example of this occurs in 
Ezek. xxxi. 15 — 18. In the 15th verse it is rendered 
grave, and in verses 1 6th and 1 7th it is twice rendered 
hell. Besides, observe, that what is called grave and 
hell in verses 15th, 16th and 17th, is called in verse 
18th, "the nether parts of the earth," — Another ex- 
ample we have of this in Isai. xiv. 3 — 24. In this 
passage, too long for quotation, is given a description 
of the fall of the king of Babylon. Any one who 
reads it, may see that things are stated which forbid 
us thinking, that by Sheol, translated both hell and 
grave, a place of eternal misery was intended. But 
it is well known that detached parts of this passage 
have been so' applied. The persons represented as 
in hell, are said to be moved at the coming of some 
other sinners to the same place of misery ; and as 
saying to them, — "Art thou also become weak as 
we ? Art thou become like unto us ?'' But the pas- 
sage needs only be read by any man of ordinary 
sense to convince him of the absurdity of such an in- 
terpretation. But further; in Prov. xxx. 16. Sheol, 
or hell, is represented as never satisfied. And in 
Cant, viii. 6. jealousy is said to be "cruel as Sheol, 
or hell." All this may be said of the grave, but how 
it could be said of a place of eternal misery I cannot 



THE WORD SHEOL. 27 

perceive. Had our translators rendered Sheol hell 
in the following passage, it would have given such a 
plausible aspect to it, as meaning a place of misery, 
that it would not have been easy to convince many 
people to the contrary. Thus it is said Job xxi. 13. 
speaking of the wicked, — "they spend their days in 
wealth, and in a moment go down to hell." Had this 
been done, people would have quoted it as decisive 
in proof of the doctrine of eternal misery. Why it 
was not rendered here hell instead of grave, I know 
not, but sure I am, it is as strong as any of the texts 
in which it is rendered hell, to prove this doctrine. 

The last passage in which Sheol is translated 
grave, is Hosea xiii. 14,—." I will ransom them from 
the power of the grave. I will redeem them from 
death ; O death 1 will be thy plague ; O grave, or 
hell, I will be thy destruction," On this text 1 beg 
leave to make the following remarks. 

1st, If Sheol, translated grave, and in other places 
hell, means a place of eternal misery, it is evident 
from this passage, that men are to be ransomed from 
it, and it destroyed. " I will ransom them from the 
power of hell," and, "O hell, I will be thy destruc- 
tion." It will be easily perceived, that those who 
believe Sheol to be the place of endless misery, ought 
to give this up, for if they do not, they must admit, 
that neither the place nor its punishment is to be 
of eternal duration. If Sheol, translated pit, grave, 
and bell, is relinquished, as referring to such a 
place, it follows, that no such doctrine as this was 
known under the Old Testament, as taught by the 
inspired writers. Dr. Campbell, and others, as we 
have seen in the foregoing extracts, give up Sheol, 
and contend that Gehenna is the place of eternal 
punishment for the wicked. 

2d, In the passage under consideration, there seems 
to be a double kij^d jof proof, that Sheol does not 



^8 AN INQUIRY INTd 

signify hell, but the grave or state of the dead. Th^ 
first clause of the verse, — " I will ransom them from 
the power of the grave," is explained bj the second, 
" I will redeem them from death." Death, in this last 
clause, answers to, oris synonymous with, grave in 
the first. But again, it is equally evident, that death 
in the third clause, is equivalent to grave in the fourth. 
This kind of parallelism is common in the Old Tes- 
tament; attention to which is of importance in under- 
standing the precise import of many expressions there 
used. As this text is quoted in the New Testament, 
and must again be brought to view, w^e shall for the 
present dismiss it. 

These are now all the passages fairly before us, in 
which Sheol is rendered grave in the common ver- 
sion. Some may be disposed to ask, — why did not 
our translators render Sheol hell in all these texts, as 
they have done in many others, which we shall pres- 
ently introduce? The answer to this question is of 
easy solution. It would have been absurd, nay, 
shocking to all our best feelings, to have rendered 
Sheol hell in many of the above passages. For ex- 
ample, it would not do to represent Joseph in hell, 
or a place of endless misery. No one could bear to 
hear, that Jacob expected soon to go to the same 
place. And surely it would never be believed that 
Job ever prayed, — "O that thou wouldest hide me in 
hell." In short, it never could be admitted, that Da- 
vid, Hezekiah, and others, could have spoken about 
Sheol as they did, if they attached the same ideas to 
it as we do to the word hell. 

Had our translators rendered Sheol uniformly by 
the words pit, grave, or hell, we would have been less 
liable to mistaken views on this subject. Let us, for 
example, suppose that they had always translated it 
hell. We, in reading our Bibles, must have seen from 
the context of the places, from the persons spoken 



THE WORD SHEOL. 29^^ 

about, and other circumstances, that a place of eter- 
nal punishment could not be meant by this word. 
The Old Testament saints expected to go to Sheol, 
yea, prayed for it; but what would we think, to hear 
Christians now speaking about hell, as they did about 
Sheol ? For example, would it not astonish us to hear 
a professed saint, pray, — " O that thou wouldest hide 
me in hell, or in the place of endless misery?" But 
why should it astonish us, if they meant by Sheol, 
what we now do by the word hell? Take only a sin- 
gle example of this. If Jacob meant by Sheol what 
we now mean by the word hell, why ought the follow- 
ing statement to surprise us ? — A Christian loses a son, 
and refuses to be comforted by his family. He says, 
" I will go down to the place of endless misery unto 
my son mourning." Concerning another beloved 
child he says, — 'Mf mischief befal him by the way in 
which ye go, then shall ye bring down my gray hairs 
with sorrow to the place of endless misery." This 
would be strange language in the mouth of a Chris- 
tian in our day* But it ought not, if we indeed con- 
tend, that Sheol or hell, in the Old Testament, had 
any reference to such a place of misery. 

3d, Let us now turn our attention to all the texts in 
which Sheol is rendered by the word hell^ in the com- 
mon version. It ought to be observed generally, in 
the outset, that in several of the places where the 
word Sheol is rendered hell in the text, the transla- 
tors put grave in the margin. The man who does not 
perceive that grave in many places, at least, is much 
more suitable to the text and context, must read his 
Bible very carelessly. Who, for example, does not 
perceive this in Psalm xvi. 10. " for thou wilt not leave 
my soul in hell." This is quoted. Acts ii. and ap- 
plied to the resurrection of our Lord. It may surely 
be asked,— was our Lord ever in hell, the place of 
eternal misery? When he said, '' father into thy 

\ 



30 AN INQUIRY INTO 

hands I commend my spirit," did his father send him 
to hell? This, 1 presume, will not be pretended. 
Where, it may be said then, was our Lord's soul not 
kft? He was not left in the state of the dead, or in 
Sheol or Hades, which are only tw^o names for the 
same place. The Lord did not suffer his Holy One 
to see corruption, but raised him again from the dead. 

But again: was Jonah in hell, when he said, chap, 
ii. 2, — ''out of the belly of hell cried 1, and thou 
iiearedst my voice ?" 1 have always understood, that 
in hell prayers were unavailing. But if Jonah was 
m hell, this is not true, for he not only prayed there, 
but was heard and delivered out of it. It deserves 
notice, that our translators. Gen. xxxvii. 35. aware 
that it would not do to send Jacob to hell, translate 
the word Sheol grave ; and here, thinking it rather 
strange to represent Jonah as praying in hell, they 
put grave in the margin. — But again ; are we to con- 
clude, when it is said, Psalm Iv. 15, — '' let death seize 
upon them, and let them go down quick into hell,'' 
that David prayed that the persons of whom he spoke, 
might go down quick, or alive, into a place of endless 
misery? As this was not a prayer very suitable for 
the man after God's own heart, we find our transla- 
tors again put grave in the margin. 

Having seen from Psalm xvi. 10. that the Saviour 
is represented as having been in hell, we need not be 
much surprised at what is said in the following pas- 
sages, which refer to him. Thus, Psalm xviii. 5. it 
is said, — '' the sorrov/s of hell compassed me about; 
the snares of death prevented me." See also 2 Sam. 
xxii. 6. and Psalm cxvi. 3. where the same language 
is used. In this text, " sorrows of hell," and '' snares 
of death," are convertible expressions, and seem ev- 
idently to refer to the Saviour's sufferings. I am 
aware, that it hath been held as an opinion, that our 
Lord actually went to hdl^ and suffered its pains for 



THE WORD SHEOL. 31 

a season. This opinion was probably founded on 
these passages.' In the present day, 1 presume the 
man is not to be found, who would risk his reputation 
in defending it. 

That Shieol, translated hell, means the grave, or 
state of the dead, is, I think, obvious. Thus, Solo- 
mon, speaking of a lewd woman, says, Prov. vii. 27, 
— '' her house is the way to hell ;" which he immedi- 
ately explains, by adding, "going down to the cham- 
bers of diath." This is, if possible, still more evi- 
dent from chap. v. 5, — "her feet go down to death," 
which is explained by the next words, — "her steps 
take hold on hell." The same remarks apply to 
Prov. xxiii. 13, 14. — As the state of the dead v/as 
concealed from the eyes, or knowledge of all the liv- 
ing, its being known to God, is stated as a proof of 
his perfection in knovv^ledge. Thus it is said. Job 
xxvi. 6, — "hell is naked before him, and destruction 
hath no covering." And again, Prov. xv. 11. " hell 
and destruction are before the Lord, how much more 
then the hearts of the sons of men." 

Skeol^ whether translated pit, grave, or hell, is rep- 
resented as below, beneath, and as a great depth. 
Persons are always spoken of as going down to it. 
It is contrasted as to depth, with heaven for height, 
the extent of both being alike unknown. Thus it is 
said, Prov. xv. 24, — " the way of life is above to the 
wise, that they may depart from hell beneath." And, 
— " it is high as heaven ; what canst thou do ? deep- 
er than hell; what canst thou know ?" Job xi. 8. See 
also, Amos ix. 2. And Psalm cxxxix. 8. where sim- 
ilar language occurs. See also Dr. Campbell's dis- 
sertation quoted above, on all these texts. But not 
only is Sheol, helU represented as a great depth, but 
we read of the lowest hell. Thus in Deut. xxxii. 22. 
it is said,— "for afire is kindled in mine anger and 
shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the 



32 AN INaUIRV INTO 

earth with her increase, and set on fire the founda- 
tions of the mountains." Here, as in other places, 
for hell in the text, our translators put grave in the 
margin. Should we understand hell, in this text to 
mean the place of eternal misery, it is implied, that 
there is a low, and lower, as well as lowest place of 
misery for the wicked. Accordingly, it has been 
common to assign to notoriously wicked men the low- 
est hell. But whatever sense we put on the phrase, 
''the lowest hell," it is the same place of which Da- 
vid thus speaks. Psalm Ixxxvi. 13, — "for great is thy 
mercy towards me: and thou hast delivered my soul 
from the lowest hell." Was David ever in the low- 
est place of eternal misery? But here again our 
translators for hell in the text put grave in the mar- 
gin. The fact is, the language in the above texts is 
used figuratively, and it would be absurd to interpret 
it literally. See the foregoing dissertation of Dr. 
Campbell in proof of this. — When we read of the 
lowest hell, which implies a low, and a lower, is not 
this mode of speaking used as a contrast to the ex- 
pression highest heavens, which implies a high and a 
higher heavens? We read also of the third heavens, 
which clearly implies two more. I w^ould therefore 
suggest it for consideration, if the expression '' lowest 
hell," did not originate, from the dead being some- 
times cast into pits, the depth of which was as little 
known, as the height of the highest heavens. When 
the common honors were paid the dead, they were 
put in caves, or vaults, or decently interred under the 
earth. But when persons were deemed unworthy of 
funeral honors, were they not cast into pits, the depth 
of which, were sometimes unknown? Did not this 
unknown depth give rise to the expression depths of 
/le//, just as the unknown height of the highest heavens-^ 
gave rise to this expression ? 



THE WORD SHEOL, 33 

In Isai. V* 14. it is said, — ''hell hath enlarged her- 
self, and opened her mouth without raeasure; and 
their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and 
he that rejoiceth shall descend into it." This may be 
said with respect to the grave, but surely with no 
propriety could it be said of a place of eternal mis- 
ery. Speaking of the proud ambitious man, it is al- 
so said, Hab. ii. 5, — ''who enlargeth his desire as 
hell, and is as death, and cannot be satisfied." In 
this text, death and hell are used as convertible words 
to express the same thing. In Prov. xxvii. 20. it is 
said " hell and destruction are never full." Similar 
things are stated above in the texts where Sheol is 
translated grave, as in these passages, and show, that 
the same was intended by the inspired writers, al- 
though the original word is differently rendered. The 
context of all these texts sufficiently show, that the 
grave or state of the dead is meant, and not a place 
of eternal misery. Indeed, let any one read Ezek* 
xxxii. 1 1 — 32. and observe, that all the dead are rep- 
resented as in hell, and as speaking out of the midst 
of hell. Their graves are represented as about them ^ 
that the mighty are gone down to hell with their wea- 
pons of war, and that their swords are under their 
heads. All this description agrees very well with the 
ancient mode of placing the dead in their reposito- 
ries, but it is contrary to common belief, that a place 
of eternal misery could be referred to. Does any one 
believe that the mighty of this earth have their swords 
under their heads in such a place ? 

As Sheol the grave, or hell, was the most debased 
state to which any person could be brought, hence I 
think God says, reproving Israel for their idolatries, 
— "and didst debase thyself even unto hell." I'^ai. 
Ivii. 9. And as death and the grave are of all things 
the most dreaded by men, it is said of some, that 
thev. — "have made a covenant with death, and with 



34 AN INi^UIRY INT© 

hell are at agreement." This language, expresses m 
a very strong manner, their fancied security, but 
which were only vain words, for it is added, — ^'your 
covenant with death shall be disannulled, and your 
agreement with hell shall not stand." Isai. xxviii. 15 
—19. 

The last text in which Sheol is translated hell, is 
Psalm ix. 17, — 'Hhe wicked shall be turned into hell, 
and all the nations who forget God." There is no 
text in which the word Sheol occurs, which has been 
more frequently quoted than this, to prove that by 
hell, is meant a place of misery for the wicked. The 
wicked are the persons spoken of, and they are said 
to be, or shall be, turned into hell, with all the nations 
that forget God. Plausiole as this appears to be, we 
have only to consult the context, to see that no such 
idea was intended by the inspired writer. The Psalm 
in which the words stand, is treating of God's tempo- 
ral judgments upon the heathen nations. We think 
if verses 15—20. are consulted, this will sufficiently 
appear. What leads people to think that this passage 
refers to eternal misery, is, the false idea which they 
have attached to the word hell. They have associa- 
ted a false idea with this word, and in this text they con- 
clude that it is taught. But surely no one, who has 
attended to all the above texts, can continue to be- 
lieve that Sheol here, has such a meaning. It is the 
same hell into which the wicked are turned, which 
Jacob said he would go down to Joseph mourning. 
It is the same hell in which the Saviour's soul was not 
left. It is the same hell David prayed the wicked 
might go dov/n quick, or alive into. When once I 
can believe that David prayed the wicked might go 
down alive to a place of endless misery, and that Ko- 
rah and his company did go there alive, it is possible 
1 may believe that the text before us contains the an- 
swer to David's prayer. But it will not be easy t© 



THE WORD SHEOL. 36 

produce evidence of this. The fact is, it would prove 
top much for even those who take this view of it. It 
would prove that all the heathen nations must go to 
eternal misery, a thing which few are prepared to ad- 
mit. Ask the question of the most zealous advocates 
of the doctrine,— -are all the heathen nations turned 
into eternal misery? They hesi'iate, they faulter to 
say yes. But why do they so? for if Sheol means 
such a place, the passage is plain and explicit in de- 
claring it. 

It perhaps may be objected to this view of the text, 
— are not all good people turned into Sheol, or the 
state of the dead, as well as the wicked ? why then is 
it said the wicked shall be turned into hell with all 
the nations that forget God? The answer to this is 
easy. Though all good people in David's day, went 
to Sheol, as well as the wicked, yet^not in the way he 
is here speaking of the wicked. David is speaking 
of God's public judgments on the heathen, and by 
those judgments they were to be cut oft^ from the 
earth, or turned into Sheol. It is one thing to die, 
and quite another to be cut off by the judgments of 
God from the earth. That the Sheol or hell here 
mentioned, was not a place of endless mi^^ery for the 
wicked, see Ainsvvorth on this text, and on Gen. 
xxxvii. and Psalm xvi. — 1 shall only add, if all the 
wicked, yea, all the nations who forgot God in those 
days were turned into a place of endless misery, up- 
on what principles are we to justify the character of 
God, or of good men, for their want of feeling to- 
wards them, or their exertions to save them from it ? 
We are told that the times of this ignorance God 
winked at: that he suffered all nations to walk after 
their own ways. If all the heathen nations were turn- 
ed into a place of eternal misery, neither God, nor 
good men felt, or spoke, or acted, as if this was true* 



36 AN INQUIRY INTO 

I have now finished, what Dr. Campbell calls ari 
endless labour^ namely, to illustrate by an enumeration 
of all the passages in the Old Testament, that Sheol, 
rendered pit, grave, and hell in the common version, 
does not signify a place of endless misery. What he 
stated concerning this in the above extract, we think 
is strictly correct. Before closing my remarks on 
all these passages, there are a few facts and observa- 
tions, which have occurred in the examination of 
them, which deserve some notice. 

1st, The word translated everlasting, eternal, for- 
ever, is never connected with Sheol or hell by any 
of the Old Testament writers. If they believed that 
this was a place of punishment for the wicked, and 
that it was endless in its duration, it is somewhat sur- 
prising that this should be the case* Every one knows, 
that these words are very often used there, but not 
in a single instance do the inspired writers in any v/ay 
use them, when speaking of Sheol, or hell. So far 
from this, in some of the texts, it is said, hell is to be 
<lestroyed. We may then make an appeal to every 
candid mind, and ask, if hell in the Old Testament 
refers to a place of eternal misery, how are we to ac- 
count for this ? The fact is certain. To account for 
it, 1 leave to those who believe this doctrine. We 
read to be sure in books, and we have heard also in 
sermons, of an eternal kelL but such language, is not 
found in all the book of God, nor did it ever drop 
from the lips of any inspired v.riter. 

2d, Another fact equally crrtain is, that not only 
are the words eternal, everlasting, or forever, omitted 
in speaking of Sheol or hell, but this place is not 
spoken about, as a place of misery, at all. WhetheV 
Sheol is translated pit, grave, or hell, in not one of 
the passages, is it described as a place of misery for 
the wicked, or for any one else. Before there need 
to be any dispute, whether the punishment in this 



THE WORD SHEOL. 37 

place is to be of eternal duration, we have got first to 
prove, that it is a place of punishment. But as this 
place is Sheol and not Gehenna, I pass this over. 

3d, But so far from its being a place of misery, or 
eternal in its duration, it is also a fact, that it is de- 
scribed as a place of insensibility and ignorance. We 
are told that there is, — " no work, nor device, nor 
knowledge, nor wisdom in the grave, or Sheol, whith- 
er thou goest." Eccles. ix. 10. Besides 5 Hezeki- 
ah, we have seen, said, Isai. xxxviii. 18, — " the grave 
cannot praise thee; death cannot celebrate thee; 
they that go down into the pit cannot hope for thy 
truth." I ask, could those persons have spoken in 
this manner, if they believed that hell was a place of 
punishment? Yea, I ask, could they in truth have 
spoken so, if their ideas about Sheol were the same 
as ours are about hell? We think this is impossible. 

4th, It is a fact beyond dispute, that the Old Tes- 
tament writers, and Christians generally in these days, 
are hardly agreed in a single idea about hell, if She- 
ol in the Old Testament signifies a place of eternal 
misery. It would be tedious to state this at length, 
r shall give a specimen of this disagreement. 

Notice then, 1st, How the inspired writers in those 
days, and good men in these, speak about Sheol or 
hell, in regard to themselves. Jacob, Job, and others, 
speak of going to hell, and expecting it as a thing of 
course, which they could not avoid. Yea, Job, un- 
der his trials, prays to be hid in helL I need not be 
more particular, for the texts above show, what were 
the views and feelings of the very best of men in 
tfhose days about this. Now I ask, is there a Chris- 
tian in the world, who, in the present day speaks, and 
prays about hell, as those Old Testament saints did ? 
But why not? The reason, I think is obvious. In 
those days Sheol or hell, did not as in these, signify 
replace of punishment, but the state of the dead. In 
.4 



38 AN INQUIRY INTO 

these days, when Christians speak about hell, they 
always mean the place of endless misery for the wick- 
ed. Now, the obvious reason of such difference be- 
tween their mode of speaking and ours about hell is, 
that we have affixed a very different sense to this 
word from what they did. If we are to understand 
the Scriptures correctly, we must ascertain what sense 
the original writers attached to the words they used, 
without regarding the sense men may have given 
them, since the book of Revelation was completed. 
What right have we, or any one else, to alter the sense 
of the words used by the Holy Spirit ? 

2d, How the inspired writers in those days, and 
pious people in these, speak about hell to the wicked. 
Not an instance, can I find where it is intimated, that 
any such went to hell as a place of eternal misery* 
Both good and bad went to Sheol, but not a word is 
said, that this was such a place as people now think 
hell to be. If the Old Testament saints entertained 
the same ideas about hell, as most Christians do in 
our day, I wish some person would rationally and 
Scripturally account to me for the following facts. 

1st, If their belief was the same as in our day, why 
do we never find them express that belief about eter- 
nal punishment, as is now done in books, and sermons, 
and conference meetings, and in common conversa- 
tion. No man can possibly deny the vast difference 
between their language, and the common language 
now used upon this subject. If the language is so 
different, is it not a presumptive proof that this in- 
vention of new language arose from the unscriptural 
doctrine that hell was a place of endless misery ? An 
ijnscriptural doctrine always gives rise to unscriptur- 
al language ; for the words of Scripture are the very 
best which could be chosen to express the will of God 
to men. That doctrine, is not of God, or the man 
who contends for it, has a wrong view of it, who thinks^ 



THE WORD SHEOL. o^ 

that the words of Scripture are not sufficiently defi- 
nite in expressing it. The man who can find similar 
ideas, and similar language in the Old Testament, as 
are in common use in our day about a place of eter- 
nal misery, must have read his Bible with more at- 
tention than I have done. After repeated and care- 
ful perusals of it, I frankly confess my inability to 
find either such ideas or language. I ask then, if the 
Old Testament writers had any such ideas, why did 
they not express them ? I ask further, if they never 
expressed such ideas how do we know that they had 
them? 

3d, How is it to be accounted for, that the fears 
and feelings of good people under the old dispensa- 
tion, yea, their exertions also, were so different from 
the fears and feelings, and exertions of Christians in 
our day, about saving men from hell ? It was no ob- 
ject of fear, of feeling, or of exertion in those days. 
in these, it is the ultimate object of the fears and feel- 
ings and exertions of the religious community. Let 
us glance at the conduct of men in those days about 
the subject of eternal punishment. 

To begin with their fears ; I do not find that they 
express any, and it is fair to conclude that they had 
none. If they had any fears, 1 have no doubt that 
on some occasion or other they would have expres- 
sed them. As 1 do not find them expressed, I cannot 
produce any examples of their fears about their chil- 
dren, their relations, their neighbours, or the world at 
large, going to eternal misery. — As to their feelings, 
I do not find a sigh heaved, a tear shed, a groan ut- 
tered, a prayer offered, nor any exertions made, as if 
they believed men were exposed to endless misery in 
a future state. We see parents, and others, deeply 
affected at the loss of their children and friends by 
death. We see pious people deeply grieved on ac- 
eaunt of their disobedience to God's laws, but where 



4€ AN INQUIRY INTO 

do we find any thing like any of the above expres'- 
sions of feeling, arising from their belief, that such 
persons would lift up their eyes in endless misery ? I 
find nothing of the kind expressed, either in the way 
of anticipation before death, or after such persons had 
been removed from the world. Now, is it not strange, 
that all this should be the state of the fears and feel- 
ings of good people, if they did indeed believe end- 
less misery was to be the portion of the wicked ? The 
whole race of mankind is swept from the earth by a 
flood, Noah and his family excepted; but, does this 
good man deplore, in any shape, that so many pre- 
cious souls should be sent to hell ? God also destroy- 
ed the cities of the plain : Abraham intercedes that 
they might be spared, but uses no argument with God, 
that the people must go to hell to sufier eternal mise- 
ry. Now suffer me to ask, if Abraham believed this 
doctrine, is it possible he should have failed to urge 
it as an argument, that all these wicked persons must 
go to hell, if God destroyed them? No notice is 
taken of the very argument, which in our day, would 
be most urged in prayer to God, if ar>y thing similar 
was to take place. All who have read the Old Tes- 
tament know, what vast numbers were cut off in a day, 
by w^ar, and pestilence, and other means, yet do you 
ever hear it deplored by a single individual, as it is 
often done in our day, that so many were sent out of 
the world to eternal misery? If, in short, this doc- 
trine was then believed, a dead silence and the most 
stoical apathy were maintained even by good men 
about it. 

Under the Old Testament dispensation, the sinful 
condition of the heathen nations, is often spoken about. 
But do we ever find the inspired writers representing 
those nations as all going to eternal miserj^, or did 
they use similar exertions to save them from it as are 
used in the present day? If the doctrine of eternal 



THE WORD SHEOL. 41 

misery was known and believed in those days, is it 
not very unaccountable, that so many ages should 
pass away, before God commanded the Gospel to be 
preached to every creature, and before those who 
knew their danger", should use exertfons to save them 
from it ? If the doctrine be false, we may cease to 
wonder at this, but if it be true, it is not easy to rec- 
oncile these things with the well known character of 
God, and the feelings of every good man. What an 
immense multitude of human beings, during four thou- 
sand years, must have lived and died ignorant that 
such a place of misery awaited them in a future state. 
It is evident, that both Jews and Gentiles, during the 
above period, were often threatened with, yea, suffer- 
ed temporal punishment. God raised up, and sent 
prophets to warn them of his judgments against them. 
I am then totally at a stand, wha^ to think, or what 
to say, in justification of God's character, the charac- 
ter of the prophets sent by him, yea, of all good men 
in those days, that, knowing eternal misery awaited 
every heathen, yea, every wicked Jew, that nothing 
should be said to them on this subject. Jonah was 
sent to Nineveh, and the sum of his message was, — 
'^ yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown.''^ 
But did he either receive, or did he deliver any mes- 
sage to thern^ that their souls w^ere in danger of eter- 
nal misery?' Nothing like this; and every one who 
has read the Old Testament knows, that this is only 
a single example from many more I might adduce. 
The very reason why Jonah refused to go to Nine- 
veh was, he knew that God was a m.erciful God, and 
would spare Nineveh. After he did go, his pride 
was hurt, because God did not destroy the city as he 
had predicted. His peevish disposition w^as suffi- 
ciently manifested about this ; but not a word escapes 
him that the Ninevites were exposed to endless pun- 
i^meiit, I ask, can a single instance be produced 
4* 



42 AN INQUIRY INTO 

from the Old Testament, where a prophet of the Lord, 
was ever sent to any people to warn them against 
eternal misery in a place called hell ? Yea, I go fur- 
ther, and ask, if any man can produce a single in- 
stance where a false prophet ever endeavoured ta 
make gain to himself, by the doctrine of eternal mis- 
ery ? I do not find that either true or false prophets 
did so under that dispensation, or that this doctrine 
was known and believed by a single individual. As 
men were not threatened with such a punishment, so 
none w^ere ever congratulated as being saved from it. 
As it was never held up to deter men from sin while 
ignorant of God, so it was never urged on believers 
to stimulate them to gratitude and obedience. Is it 
possible then, that this doctrine could be believed^ 
yet all remain silent on the subject ? If no revelation 
was given about it, how could men avoid such a pun- 
ishment? If a revelation w^as given, how is it ac- 
counted for, that it is not mentioned by one of the 
Old Testament writers? If it is mentioned by any 
of them under any other name than Sheol, I am ig- 
norant of it; nor is this even pretended by those who 
believe the doctrine. I am fully aware, that there 
are tw^o or three passages commonly quoted. For ex- 
ample, Dan. xii. 2. is perhaps the most plausible that 
can be adduced: — "and many of them that sleep in 
the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting 
life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." 
All 1 shall say of this text here, is, that were I fully 
convinced that the doctrine of eternal misery was 
true, I never could quote this passage in support of it. 
To assign my reasons here, would be aside from the 
present investigation. 

5th, Another fact deserving our notice, is, that the 
living in speaking of their dead friends, never speak 
as if they were to be separated from them after death, 
but always as associated with them. This appears 



THE WORD SHEOL. 43 

to have been the case, whether the persons were good 
or bad. An instance to the contrary, cannot be pro- 
duced, where a person ever expressed himself, as if 
he expected after death to be separated, and separat- 
ed from his friends forever. But it is well known, 
that persons in our day, not only expect to be separat- 
ed from many of their friends forever, but even say, 
that they shall give their hearty amen to their ever- 
lasting condemnation. Yea, it is even said, that the 
happiness of those in heaven is to be greatly enhanc- 
ed, by their looking down on those in eternal tor- 
ments, in seeing the smoke of it ascend forever and 
ever, l^his was once the current popular divinity, 
and though not yet altogether out of use, yet I am 
happy to say, the more thinking and sober-minded, 
reject it. 

Bat, it may be asked, is it true, that persons under 
the Old Testament expected to be associated with 
their deceased friends after death ?: I do not recollect 
a single instance to the contrary, and shall here, in 
proof of the assertion, refer to Jahn's Biblical ArchaSf 

To this it may probably be objected, that associa- 
tion with their friends after death, only referred to 
their bodies mingling in the dust together, and had 
no reference to their spirits after death. Admitting 
this to be true, permit me to ask, can any proof be 
adduced, that their spirits were separated from each 
other after death? As I am unable to adduce any 
proof, I request those who say that they were so sep- 
arated, to produce evidence of this from the Old Tes- 
tament. 1 shall give it all due consideration. At 
any rate, if the Old Testament is silent on the subject 
it ill becomes us to assert that such was the case. Its 
very silence is to me an indication that no such idea 
was entertained in those days. If it was, it is some- 
what surprising that no person ventured to express it* 



44 AN m^UIRY INTO 

And if it is not expressed by any of the Old Testa- 
ment writers, how is it known that such an idea was 
entertained by them. 

One thing we think must be admitted by all who 
have read the Old Testament with attention. It is 
this: good people in those days, do not appear to 
have had the fears and anxieties of mind which haunt 
men's minds now, about their children, their rela- 
tions, their neighbours, and a great part of mankind, 
as all going to a place of endless misery. You may 
read the Old Testament, until your eyes grow dim 
with age, before you .find any thing like this there.. 
How is this silence to be accounted for, if the doctrine 
of endless misery was known and believed? If by 
Sheol they understood the same as men do now by 
the word hell, is it possible, that good people in those 
days could feel so easy on such a subject ? Whatever 
ideas they attached to this word, we think it is certain,, 
they did not mean by it a place of endless misery. 

The question is likely then to be asked, seeing that 
Sheol or hell does not mean a place of eternal mis- 
ery, — what does it mean? What is the idea the Old 
Testament writers affixed to this word? From the re- 
marks already made, we think something has been 
said in answer to this question. — By Sheol, seems ev- 
idently to be meant, what Job calls, chap. xxx. 33,— 
" The house appointed for all the living^ And it is the 
»iAme to which Solomon alludes, when he says^Eccles. 
iii. 20. — ''all go to one place." The question still 
returns. What place is this? What place it is, may be 
learned further from the following passages. In 2 Sam,^ 
xii. 23. where David is speaking of his dead child, 
he says, — "I shall go to him, but he shall not return 
to me." This, it may be said, only pi'ovokcs the ques- 
tion — where was his child ? In heaven, most people 
would answer, and some have quoted this text to 
prove the salvation of all infants.- Nothing more, L 



THE WORD SHEOL. 45 

conceive, is meant, nor could be rationally inferred 
from this text than this, — that his child was in the 
state of the dead or in Sheol, and David, impressed 
with a sense of his own mortality intimates, that he 
would soon follow him to the same place. So Jacol> 
speaks of himself in a similar way in reference to his 
son Joseph, But further, we find in 1 Sam. xxviii. 19. 
Samuel thus speaks to Saul, "tomorrow shalt thou 
and thy sons be Avith me.'' Where was this ? It may 
be asked, — When Saul desired the woman to bring 
up Samuel, was it from heaven he expected him to 
come? Surely not; for in this case Samuel would 
have been brought down, not up. Was it then from 
hell, the place of eternal misery, he expected him to 
come? This cannot be admitted, for neither Saul, nor 
any one else, ever thought that Samuel was there. 
From what place then did Saul wish the woman to 
bring Samuel? I answer, from Sheol, the same place 
to which Jacob said he would go down mourning to 
Joseph. The same place in which the Saviour's soul 
was not left. If Saul and his sons went to hell, a 
place of endless misery, it is certain Samuel was 
there before him. And it is equally certain, that if 
Samuel was in heaven, Saul and his sons were there 
soon after with him. But what appears simply to be 
meant is this, — Samuel was in Sheol, or the state of 
the dead, and the issue of the battle proved, that Saul 
and his sons were with Samuel, and with all the dead 
who had gone before them. As to the woman's hav- 
ing power to bring Samuel from Sheol, we do not be- 
lieve any such thing. We believe that she was an 
impostor, but this is not the place for assigning our 
reasons, or entering further into this part of the his- 
tory of Saul. We have merely referred to it as show- 
ing what were the popular opinions in thqse days or 
the subject before us« 



46 AN INQUIRY INTO THE WORD SHEOL. 

We are aware, that it maybe objected to the above 
investigation, that future existence was as little known 
under the Old Testament, as the doctrine of endless 
misery; and therefore we might just as well deny fu- 
ture existence, as endless misery, from the mere si- 
lence of the Old Testament writers. To this I would 
answer that we do not believe that future existence 
was altogether unknown under the Old Testament. 
We cannot, here, however, give our reasons for think- 
ing &o.. But admitting it true, the objector has then 
to prove that endless misery in hell was brought to 
light by the Gospel. But is this any where declared 
in the New Testament? That the ancient Jews had 
some knowledge of a future state of existence we refer 
to Jahn's Biblical Archaeology, Section 314. 



SECTION II. 



all the passages in which hades occuks, ct^- 
sid|:red. 

WE have seen that the word Sheol in the Old Tes- 
tament, rendered />i/, gmi^e, and hell^ in the common 
version, was not used by the sacred writers, to ex- 
press a place of endless misery. This we have at- 
tempted to establish, not only by an enumeration of 
all the texts where it occurs, but by a number of facts 
and observations, which on most subjects would be 
deemed conclusive. We have also adduced the tes- 
timony of Dr. Campbell, and other critics, that this 
is not, in a single instance, the sense of the word Sheol 
in the Old Testament. 

It is allowed by consent of all critics and commen- 
tators, that I have ever seen, that Hades is the corres- 
ponding word in the New Testament, to Sheol in the 
Old ; and that both words are used by the inspired 
writers to express the same thing. Indeed, the slight- 
est . attention to this subject, must convince any 
candid person of the correctness of this statement. 
In neither Testaments is a place of endless misery 
expressed by these words. I might then take it for 
granted, that Hades does not refer to such a place of 
punishment, anymore than Sheol, and save myself the 
labour of the following investigation about it. But I 
shall proceed to examine all the places where Hades 
is used in the New Testament, because some texts in 
which it occurs, are still considered by many people, 
as teaching the doctrine of eternal misery. 1 am truly 
.sorry to add that even some preachers, who certainly 



48 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ought to know better, still continue to quote such texts 
in proof of the doctrine. My labour therefore, though 
altogether unnecessary, may not be altogether unprof- 
itable, in showing, that this word was not so used by 
the New Testament writers. 

I find then, that the word Hades^ is only used eleven 
times in the New Test-ament. It is rendered in the 
common version once grave^ and in all the other ten 
places by the word helL The place in which it is 
rendered grave is, 1 Cor. xv. 55,' — "O death, where 
is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory?'' This is 
a quotation from Hosea xiii. 14. which has been no- 
ticed already under the word Sheol. In addition to 
the remarks there made, I would add the following 
here on this passage, as quoted by the apostle. No- 
tice then, 

1st, That our translators, put hell m the margin for 
grave in the text. This, with other instances^noticed 
under Sheol, show that they used hell and grave for 
the state of the dead, and not for a place of endless 
misery. 

2d, By comparing this text with the place from 
which it is quoted, it is evident that the apostle and 
the prophet both use this language to show, that Sheol, 
Hades, or hell, shall not always have dominion over 
the dead. Death is to be swallowed up in victory, 
and the place expressed by these words, be destroy- 
ed, or be no more. This victory is to be obtained 
through our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath abolished 
death, and hath brought life and incorruption to light 
by his resurrection from the dead. Nothing can be 
more obvious, than, that the apostle, in the chapter 
where he quotes this passage, is not speaking on the 
subject of endless misery, but is treating of the res- 
urrection. It is a plain case, that if any one will con- 
tend, that Hades in this passage signifies such a place 
of misery, final victory is to be obtained over it ; for 



•"•THE WO?lB HADES* 



it is triumphantly asked,— '^O Hades or b-H. v:, U 
plvice of endless misery where is tliy vicior) V^ 

3d, As the apostle in this chv^pter, was j)rotVssedIy 
treating; on the subject of the resurrection, did Hades 
or any other word e^.press a place of endless misery, 
it was the most proper occasion to introduce it. Dr. , 
Campbell, and others I might name, contend for Ge- 
Jienna, and, that to this place the wicked go after the 
resurrection. But, neither here, nor any where else, 
is a word said about Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, nor 
even Gehenna, being a place of endless misery after 
this period. If any of these words are used to express 
a place of punishment after the resurrection of the 
dead it has escaped my notice, and I should be glad 
to see this pointed out. 

4th, It is a question which is certainly not very im- 
pertinent for me to put, — '^ Why did the translators of 
the common version translate the word Hades here 
grave, and in all the other ten places render the same 
word by the term hell ?" To have rendered the word 
Hades here hell, we must have been plainly told that 
hell would not be always victorious, but would finally 
be destroyed. This, according to the usual sense of 
the word, would have been doing away the doctrine 
of endless misery for the wicked. To avoid this, it 
is rendered grave, and the word hell inserted in the 
margin. But Hades here might have been rendered 
hell, with just as much propriety as it is in other 
places; for in whatever v/ay it is translated, the text 
and context must decide its sense, and here very evi- 
dently decide, that a place of endless misery could 
not be meant. 

Acts ii. 27, 31. comes next to he considered — "be- 
cause thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt 
thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption. He 
seeing this before, spake of the resurrection of Christ, 
that his soul was not left in hell^ neither his flesh did 



dO AN INQUIRY INTO 

see corruption.-* This is aquotation from Psalm xvi* 
10. which has also been considered already under 
the word Sheol. It is quoted here as a prediction 
concerning the Messiah ; not to prove that his soul 
should not be left in the place of endless misery, but 
that he should not continue in the state of the dead. 
This is so obvious, that all remarks are unnecessary^ 
But, I shall here introduce the following quotation 
from Whitby, as it sheds general light on all the texts 
in which the words Sheol and Hades occur. On this 
passage he thus writes : — " that Sheol throughout the 
Old Testament, and Hades in the Septuagint, answer- 
ing to it, signify not the place of punishment^ or of 
the souls of bad men only, but the grave only, or the 
place of death, appears, 

" 1st, From the root of it Shaal^ which signifies to 
ask^ to crave^ and require^ because it craves for all men^ 
Prov. XXX. 16. and will let no man escape its hands. 
Psalm Ixxxix. 48. It is that Sheol or Hades whither 
we are all going. Eccles. ix. 10. 

" 2d, Because it is the place to which the good as 
well as the. bad go, for they whose souls go upwards, 
descend into it. Thither went Jacob, Gen. xxxvii. 35. 
There Job desired to be, chap. xiv. 13. for he knew 
that Sheol was his house, chap. xvii. 13. And to de- 
scend into the dust was to descend into Hades. Is not 
death common to all men ? Is not Hades the house 
of all men? Hezekiah expected to be there after he 
went hence, for he said, ' I shall go to the gates of 
Hades,' Isai. xxxviii. 30. That is, saith Jerom, to 
those gates of which the Psalmist speaks, saying, 
'thou wilt lift me up from the gates of death.' The 
ancient Greeks assigned one Hades to all that died, 
and therefore say. Hades receives all mortal men to- 
gether, all men shall go to Hades. 

" 3d, Had the penmen of the Old Testament meant 
by Hades any receptacle of souls, they could not 



THE WORD HADES. 5t 

truly have declared there was no wisdom or knowI« 
edge in Sheol, Eccles. ix. 10. No remembrance of 
God there, Psalm vi. 5. No praising of him in Sheol, 
Isai. xxxviii. 18. For those heathens who looked 
upon it as the receptacle of souls, held it to be a place 
in which they would be punished or rewarded." 
This quotation from Whitby affords a number of re- 
marks, a few of which we shall only briefly notice. 
It is evident from it, 

1st, That Sheol and Hades are one and the same 
place. Our English word hell only expressed orig- 
inally the same idea as tffese two words. 

2d, It is asserted, yea, proved in the above quota- 
tion, that by Sheol, the Old Testament writers could 
not mean any receptacle of souls, or they never could 
have spoken as they did about it. 

3d, That those heathens who looked on it as a re- 
ceptacle of souls, held it to be a place in which they 
should be punished or rewarded. If Whitby is then 
correct in these statements, it is very evident, that we 
are indebted to the heathen and not to the inspired 
writers for the idea, that Sheol, Hades, or hell, is a 
place of future misery. This we shall show more 
fully, Section 3d, to have been a notion which the 
Jews derived from their intercourse with the heathen. 

Luke xvi. 23. we shall now attempt to consider. — 
"And in hell he lifted up his eyes being in torments, 
and seeth Abraham afar off and Lazarus in his bos- 
om." See the whole of this parable, which f need 
not transcribe. Here it is said, is not only a place 
of torment mentioned, but a person there is said to be 
lifting up his eyes in it, and declaring, that he is "tor- 
mented in this flame." — It is frankly admitted, that this 
looks very plausible in establishing a place of misery. 
Plausible as its appearance is, we think this parable 
must be given up as teaching the doctrine of endless 
misery \n a future state. With a view to show this, I 



52 AN INQUIRY IN^TO 

shall submit for candid consideration the following ob- 
servations : 

1st, Let it be noticed, that the rich man is not rep- 
resented as in Gehenna^ but in Hades. It is contend- 
ed by Dr. Campbell and others, that Gehenna^ not 
Hades^ is the place of endless misery for the wicked, 
and that the punishment of Gehenna does not take 
place till after the resurrection of the dead ; yea, it 
is contended, that Hades, the place in which the rich 
man is here said to be, is to be destroyed. It is very 
evident then, that whoever contends for this person's- 
being actually in a place of tbrmeni^ must allow, that 
it is not to be of endless duration. But, I ask those 
w^ho advocate the torment to.be a reality, first to prove, 
the person tormented in Hades to be not a parabolic per- 
son, before they draw the conclusion that the torment 
is not a parabolic torments The first must be proved, 
before the last can be admitted ; for a person must 
exist before he can be tormented in any place. If the 
person mentioned is a real being and the torment he 
complains of a reality^ and not a fictitious or parabolic 
representation^ we have a right to demand why every 
thing in this account, is not considered a narrative of 
facts, and not a parable ? 

But letting such persons have this parable all their 
awn w^ay, on their own principles, it does not prove 
endless misery. All that they can possibly draw from 
it is, that Hades is an intermediate place of punishment 
between death and the resurrection; and that then, 
according ta their own account, this place is to be 
destroyed. Supposing then that I should grant alt 
they desire, they must allow, that this parable does 
not say a word about a place of endless misery. I 
might here close my remarks on this parable, as it has 
no bearing on the subject of our investigation. But P 
proceed to observe, 



THE WORD HADES. 56 

^d, That whatever place Hades is, in which the 
rich man is here represented as in torment, it is very- 
evident that Abraham and Lazarus were also in 
Hades. Though spoken of as at some distance from 
each other, yet they were within sight and hearing, 
and could converse together. The one is not repre- 
sented as in heaven and the other in hell. No ; they 
are represented as in the same place and on a level 
with each other. Every one knows, how very differ- 
ent this representation is from the common ideas en- 
tertained about the place of punishment, and the 
place of happiness in our day. Do you ever hear 
Christians speak as if both righteous and wicked 
were in the same place after death? The very re- 
verse of this is the case. But, 

3d, If people will interpret a part of this parable 
literally, to suit their own religious opinions, we in- 
sist, that they go through with a literal interpretation. 
If it is maintained, that Hades "was to this man a 
place of torment, they must allow, that literal fire y^zs 
the cause of it. This we believe some are consistent 
enough to maintain. They must also admit, that his 
body was tormented in Hades, and, that he believed 
a drop of water would give some ease to his torment^t 
It must be granted, that while tormented in the flames 
of Hades, he could see, and hear, and hold conversa- 
tion with Abraham, &c. But in these, and other things, 
the literal sense is abandoned, and the part only 
which speaks of his torment, is literally interpreted* 
But we have a right to ask why this is done ? Who 
gave any man the privilege to cull out a circumstance 
from this parable, and consider it a literal fact, and 
view all the other parts as mere fiction, to fill np the 
body of the parable? Let us be informed, upon 
scriptural and rational principles, why this man was 
not tormented in his body in Hades, and why all that 
is said is not to be as literally understood as this one 
5* 



54 AN INQUIRY INTO 

circumstance ? The reason of this I think is obvious. 
This part of the parable so interpreted, does very 
well to support the popular idea, that the wicked gm 
to hell at death, and are tormented in this place. 
But every candid man must allow that this is a vqry 
strange and arbitrary mode of interpreting parables ; 
yea, any part of the Bible. Give me leave thus to 
interpret the Bible, and I pledge myself to prove al- 
most any thing from it. Until rational and scriptur- 
al rules of interpretation are adopted, it is in vain w^e 
attempt correctly to understand it, or that ever peo- 
ple shall be agreed about what it reveals. If men 
only exercised the same rationality and common 
sense in interpreting the Bible, that they do in under- 
standing human WTitings, the diversity of opinion in 
religion would decrease greatly. 

4th, Interpreting this parable literally, we cannot 
blame the Roman Catholics to claim it as a proof of 
the doctrine of purgatory. It might be urged, that 
in this place the rich man was brought to repentance, 
felt sorry for his past sins, and was deeply concerned 
for the welfare of his brethren he had left in the 
v/orld. This he showed by his requesting one to be 
sent f.'om the dead, to warn them lest they should 
come into this place of torment. But we have always 
understood, that there is no compassion among the 
damned in hell, nor any desire that others should 
avoid the same misery. But here the rich man is 
represented as very solicitous that his five brethren 
should escape this place of torment. We are aw^are 
that it has been said that his solicitude arose, not 
from any desire he had for their good, but that his 
own misery might not be increased, by their persist- 
ing in the wicked courses, of which, he, while in this 
world, had set them the example. But this is a mere 
gratuitous assumption, for the parable affords, no 
evidence of this. His brethren's persoaal good, is 



THE WORD HADES. 55 

the only motive assigned in the parable,- as inducing, 
him to such solicitude. 

5t'h, All know, or at least ought to know, that the 
imagery, or the language of parables, was never in- 
tended to be interpreted literally. This every sensi- 
ble coriifeentator allows to be correct in interpreting 
other parables. Why then interpret the language of 
the one before us literally? A parable, like a fable, 
is designed to impress on the mind, in a pleasing 
manner, some important truth. What man in his 
senses ever supposed that the language of a hhle was 
intended to be interpreted literally ? It is the moral 
lesson to be taught, which is of any importance, and 
the fable is only a pleasing mode of inculcating the 
moral. Great care, v/e think, is necessary in inter- 
preting parables ; and the utmost caution should be 
observed, in reasoning from them, to establish any 
particular doctrine of Christianity. The occasion of 
them ought to be strictly attended to, and the object 
the writer had in view by them. Without this, para- 
bles may be made to teach any thing, and every 
thing, as fancy may dictate*. 

Perhaps it may be asked,— '' what then is the im- 
portant truth our Lord intended to teach by this par- 
able?" This 1 think may be learned from verse 31st,. 
— "• If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither 
would they be persuaded, though one rose from the - 
dead." The parable was spoken to the unbelieving 
Jews, who enjoyed the writings of Moses and the 
prophets. They, as a people, owned such persons to . 
be sent of God. If their writings, did not persuade 
that wicked generation to believe, and turn from their 
evil ways, one sent from the dead would not effects 
these things in them. Such a person could come with 
no greater authority, nor give them any more assur- 
ance of the truth of God, than they had from Moses 
and the prophets. Jesus, who spoke this parable, did. 



55 AN INQUIRY INTO 

rise from the dead, and abundant evidence of this 
was given them ; but as a nation, the Jews still re- 
mained in unbelief, and were as little persuaded by 
this, as they were by Moses and the prophets^ Is 
there any thing then surprising, that in this parable 
our Lord should introduce the popular ide^which 
the Jews had imbibed about punishment in Hades, 
when by it he was teaching them, that, if they did not 
believe Moses and the prophets, neither would they 
believe though one rose from the dead? It was only 
availing himself of their popular belief, to show them 
the obstinacy of their unbelief. It was taking them 
on tlieir own received principles, to give the more 
etlect to the parable spoken to them. This mode of 
teaching and reasoning has been adopted in all ages, 
and was used by our Lord on various occasions. 

6th, If the language of this parable must be inter- 
preted literally, we urge that the following, among 
other texts which speak about Sheol,be also interpret- 
ed literally. See Ezek. xxxii. and xxxi. 15 — 18. 
Isai. xiv. 3 — 24. Sheol and Hades are only the Greek 
and Hebrew names for the same place. We ask then, 
why the parable before us must be literally interpret- 
ed, and not these passages also ? Certainly they have 
as righteous a claim, as it, to a literal interpretation. 
The difficulties to be encountered here, are neither 
small nor few, but they must be surmounted, before 
we can admit, that this parable was designed to teach 
a state of torment in Hades. I shall simply hint at 
a few of those difficulties, stated in these texts. — Per- 
sons are mentioned as speaking out of the midst of 
Sheol or hell. The graves of persons are there rep- 
resented as about them, and that they lie there un- 
circumcised, slain by the sword. They have gone 
down to hell with their weapons of war, and laid their 
swords under their heads. Hell from beneath, is al- 
so represented as moved to meet the lung of Babylon 



THE WORD HADES. 57 

Dt his coming. All the dead are stirred up for him,' 
and all the kings of the nations, are raised up from 
their thrones, in hell, at his arrival. They address 
him, saying, ^' art thou also become weak as we ? Art 
thou become like unto us ?" The worms there are 
said to cover him. When it can be proved that all 
these things take place in hell, we shall admit this par- 
able to be a literal account of torment in Hades. Un- 
til this is done, such passages must prove an insur- 
mountable difficulty in the way of establisrhirrg the 
doctrine of future misery from it. Certainly these 
passages have much more the appearance of a nar- 
rative of facts, than the parable we are now consid- 
ering. 

7th, We do not suppose that it will be doubted that 
this account of the rich man is a parable. If so, we-" 
beg leave to ask, why a parable, in Avhich Hades is 
once mentioned, must be so very differently under- 
stood, from all other texts where the same place is 
mentioned? This is a solitary exception to all the ^ 
other texts where Hades or Sheol occurs in the Old 
or New Testament. If Hades^ the same as Sheol^ be 
indeed a place of torment, how could it be said, " that 
there is no knowledge, nor device, nor wisdom" in 
this place? Was the rich man tormented in the 
flame of Hades, yet had no knowledge of it? We 
have seen from the last section, that Sheol is always 
represented as a place of silence and insensibilitj^,. 
except in places where figurative descriptions are giv- 
en of it. If this place had become a place of tor- 
ment in the days of our Lord, it is very evident that 
it was not known as such in the days of Moses and 
the prophets. We ask then, at what period it became 
a place of torment? And did the wicked in those 
days suffer any punishment there? For all good and 
bad went to Sheol. To understand Hades then in this 
parable^ to signify a place of actual torment^ mould he at 



^8 AN INCIUIRY INTO 

variance with the uniform usage of both these words- 
throughout the Bible* 

We have seen in a quotation from Whitby on the 
last passage, that the idea of Hades being a place of 
punishment after death, was derived from the heath- 
t?n. Now 1 admit, that to this heathen notion our Lord 
might allude in the parable before us. The Jews had, 
in our Lord's day, imbibed many heathen notions, and 
this one among the rest. But it is one thing for a 
sacred writer to allude to, or even speak according to 
the language of the popular opinions of the day, and 
quite another to recognise these opinions as truth. 
To illustrate what I mean by an example or two : Our 
Lord says, "ye cannot serve God and mammon.'' 
But who would infer from this, that he meant to re- 
cognise the God mammon? Again; Paul says, '^ O 
foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you." But 
was any man to conclude from this that Paul believ- 
ed in the doctrine of v/itchcraft, he would certainly 
draw, a v-ery wrong infereace from his words. I might 
illustrate this by many more examples. But, instead 
of referring to other examples in Scripture, I shall 
take one or two from our own every-day language. A 
person says, such a one has St. Anthony's fire, and 
another has St. Vitus' dance. But does any one think 
that this person meant that these saints had any in- 
fluence in producing these disorders ? I presume not. 
Supposing such statements to be printed in some med- 
ical work, and this book to be read eighteen hundred 
years hence — were they to infer that medical men in 
these days believed such saints were the agents who 
produced such diseases-^can any man believe, that 
they understood the language of this book correctly, 
or formed a just idea of the science or the common 
sense of medical men among us? No; I venture to 
saj'', that neither a quack nor a clown is to be found 
30 ignorant, who would not smile at such gross mis* 



THE WORD HADES. 59 

apprehension. If we would then understand the Scrip- 
tures correctly, we must ascertain by all the means 
in our power, what is there delivered as truths and 
facts to be believed on God's authority, and what are 
mere allusions to popular opinions. The man who 
has not yet learned the importance of this distinction 
in studying his Bible, has overlooked one very es- 
sential rule of Scripture interpretation. — In further 
proof that the Jews in our Lord's day had imbibed 
many heathen notions, and among the rest, that Ha- 
des was a place of rewards and punishments, I might 
here quote Dr. Campbell on this very parable. But 
the quotation will be more appropriately introduced 
when we come to consider the word Tartarus, also 
rendered hell in the common version. See the next 
section. 

8th, We have seen that the Old Testament repre- 
sents persons as speaking out of Sheol or hell, and 
that conversations were held there. But we presume 
no one ever thought this a reality, but a poetical li- 
cense, or a mere figurative description. But in this 
parable a dialogue takes place between the rich man 
and Abraham. The rich man is in torment, and this 
is believed to be a fact, yet the very dialogue, part of 
which is about this torment, is believed to be a fiction. 
Such as believe so, are bound to assign reasons why 
they take such liberties in their interpretations of the 
divine oracles. We have insisted that the parable 
ought to be either interpreted literally throughout, or 
this literal interpretation of a part abandoned. It 
must be allowed, we think, that this is a rational and 
fair way of interpreting the Bible. Supposing that 
the rich man's being in torment, is no more to be in* 
terpreted literally, than the dialogue said to have 
taken place between him and Abraham. Yea, let us 
understand Hades here to signify the grave or str-tc 
-of the dead. All that is said in the parablcj is i^ 



so AN INQUrRT INT4^ 

agreement with this; for the rich man seems to have 
^ body there ; and it is also in perfect agreement with 
the representations given about Sheol in the Old Tes- 
tament, except that Hades is a place of torments Nothing 
in the parable but this, would sirike any person with 
surprise, as materially difierent from what is s^^id of 
Sheol by the ancient prophets A very ; / rortant 
question then arises, how is this exception to be accounted 
for^ and how are we to he satisfied that our Lord did not^ 
in this parable^ teach that Hades is a place in which per-" 
sons are tormented after death? Keeping in view the 
rem.arks already made, we offer the following reply, 
which to our own mind is satisfactory. 

1st, What is said about Hades being a place of tor- 
ment, is but once mentioned in the New Testament, 
and it occurs in this parable. It is remarkable enough 
that it should only be mentioned once, but still more 
so, that this should be in a parable. Had it occurred 
in a plain narrative, and when our Lord was plainly 
speaking on the subject of a future state, it might be 
thought that he did teach such a doctrine. But even 
in this case, its only being mentioned once, would lead 
us carefully to examine if this one instance was not 
susceptible of a different interpretation. The impor- 
tance of the subject naturally leads us to think that 
it would be mentioned more than once, and that 
it is possible we might mistake the sense our Lord 
meant to convey in this one passage. We think we 
may fairly leave it to any candid man to say, if Hades 
be a place of torment after death, whether our Lord 
would only mention this once, and only in a parable. 
If the resurrection of the dead, or ^ny other impor- 
tant doctrine, was only mentioned once, in a parable, 
would a very solid foundation be laid for our faith in 
them ? Should we not rather have cause to suspect, 
4hat no such doctrines were revealed, but that it was 
only a part of the imagery of the parable ? 



tnE W6ED HADES, 6 1 

^d, But whether our Lord meant in this parable to 
leach that Hades was a place of tonnont, ougni. to be 
decided by ike manner tn which his aposilts luiderstood 
this parable. Let us suppose, that thej understood it 
as most religious people do in our day. if they did, 
it is an indisputable fact, that they never spoke of it 
as such in iheir preaching and writings to mankind. 
Not an instance is to be found, where the apostles ev- 
er spoke of Hades as a place of torment for any be- 
ing in the universe of God, They neither speak of 
it as a place of temporary^ nor of eternal misery^ as is 
notorious from all the places where they say any thing 
nbout Hades in their writings. Let it be remember- 
ed that what they heard in the ear from our Lord in 
parables, they were to proclaim upon the house tops» 
They heard the parable under consideration; but I 
ask where, or when, or how, did they proclaim in any 
manner, that Hades was a place of torment? The 
apostles make mention of Hades in their w^ritings, but 
never speak of it as a place of punishment. Our Lord's 
mode of teaching was, in a great measure, and for 
'Certain reasons, by parables. But what he taught in 
this way^ the apostles were to tedich plainly^ ^r\d without 
any parable. But where did they ever do this, show- 
ing, ekher plainly^ or even obscurely^ that Hades was a 
place of torment ? The case here ought to be revers- 
ed. It was our Lord w^ho taught this doctrine plain- 
ly^ in a parable, and the apostles taught it by being 
altogether silent on the subject; which if any one 
chooses, he may call a parable, but one more difficult 
<o find this doctrine in, and one not less difficult to ex- 
plain. The apostles were inspired teachers, and as 
capable of forming a correct idea of our Lord's mean- 
ing, as any preacher in our day. Can any man suf- 
fer himself to think that the apostles understood this 
parable as most preachers do now, yet never say that 
Mades or hell vras a plaoc of torment for the wicked ? 
6 



62 ' AN INQUIRY INTO 

Did they indeed believe, that at death every wick- 
ed man lifted up his eyes in hell, and was tormented 
in its flame, yet never taught it to their hearers ? This 
parable is in the mouth of every preacher of hell tor- 
ments in our day. It is the citadel of the doctrine of 
endless misery, from which he thinks it impossible he 
can ever be dislodged. Does any man now think that 
he understands this parable better than the apostles 
did ? Every man who teaches the doctrine of tor- 
ment, or punishment in Hades, virtually says that he 
has a more correct understanding of it. He alludes 
to it, quotes it, and considers this parable as an ex- 
plicit and certain proof of the doctrine. The apos-. 
ties never alluded to it, nor quoted it, nor in any way 
inform us, that Hades or hell is a place of torment. 
There is only one text which can be thought an ex- 
ception to this, and which forms the subject of the 
next section: but we shall see that it confirms the 
views I am advancing. 

We think thtn^ that this onefact^ that the apostles nev^ 
er taught that Hades was a place of torment^ ought to sat* 
isfy every candid mind that this parable was never design- 
ed by our Lord to teach such a doctrine. If men consider 
themselves authorized from it to teach it in our day^ the 
apostles who heard our Lord utter the parable^ were very 
differently minded. If we say that they did consider them- 
selves from this parable authorized to teach it^ yet never did 
it^ what are we to think of their fidelity and zeal^ com- 
pared zoith that of modern preachers ? Why do not all 
preachers nozo imitate the apostles in this? 

3d, If our Lord meant by this parable to teach a 
state of torment in Hades or hell, it was a new reve- 
lation to the world ; fo: God had not revealed it un- 
der the Old Testament dispensation to the Jew^s. 
Whatever notions the Jews and heathens had about 
Hades being a place of torment, it is certain that 
tliese could not be learned from the Scriptures. The 



THE WORD HADES. 63 

rloctrine then was new, so far as God had made any 
communication of it to the world. If our Lord then 
used Hades in this parable to express such a place, it 
is contrary to the uniform usage of Sheol in the Old 
Testament writings. If this be true, and we do not 
think it can be proved false, there is one thing in the 
parable which seems to be at variance with it. The 
object of the rich man in sending one from the dead 
to his five brethren, was, that ''he may testify unto 
them, lest they also come into this place of torment." 
To this Abraham is represented as replying, " they 
have Moses and the prophets ; let them hear them." 
If the question is asked from this, — "let them hear 
Moses and the prophets" about what? The answer 
is, — " let them hear Moses and the prophets testify 
unto them, lest they should come into this place of 
torment." But how could this man's five brethren 
hear Moses and the prophets testify this; for neither 
Moses nor the prophets had ever testified that Hades 
or Sheol was a place of torment. From what part of 
their writings could they learn that Hades or Sheol 
was a place of tormtnt immediately after deaths or any 
time e/se, either for saint^ or for sinner^ for soul^ or for 
body? All the places where Sheol occurs in the Old 
Testament, have been noticed in the preceding sec- 
tion. The critics and commentators we have there 
quoted, positively deny that Sheol of the Old Testa- 
ment was a place of misery, or was even the recepta- 
cle of souls after death. If this be true, how could 
Abraham say, — " they have Moses and the prophets ; 
let them hear them" testify that Hades or Sheol is a 
place of torment, when in fact they had testified no 
such thing. Every one may see, from the preceding 
section, that Moses and the prophets had testified that 
all the dead were in Sheol, and that there was no 
knowledge, nor device, nor wisdom, in this place. If 
Moses and the prophets had testified of such a place 



64 AN INQUIRE INTO 

of torment, there was no necessity for one hemg sent 
from the dead to do this ; but if they had not, it was 
very necessary that such a messenger should be sent; 
for no divine revelation had been given about it. Ei- 
ther, then, it must be proved that Moses and the pro- 
phets had taught Hades or Sheol to be a place of tor- 
ment after death, or the common interpretation of this 
parable must be abandoned. 

Again : If this was indeed a new doctrine our Lord 
meant to teach mankind, is there the least degree of 
probability that he would only mention it once in the 
course of his minis<try, and that too in a parable? 
We think this to be very improbable. The very cir^ 
cumstance of its being iiem^ required it to be frequent- 
jy taught, delivered in plain language^ and its truth 
well attested. But it ought to be particularly noticed, 
that though only mentioned once, and that in a para- 
ble, yet it is not introduced as a novel doctrine, but 
something which was in accordance with current opin- 
ion. This, to be sure, was in perfect agreement with 
popular opinion; but tkispopularopipio^ was not de- 
rived from the Scriptures, but from the heathens. The 
opinion was current, but it wanted the stamp of di- 
vine authority. — Further: if this was a new doctrine 
our Lord meant to teach mankind, is there not the 
greatest reason to conclude that this new doctrine 
would be often taught and enforced by his apostles^ 
in their preaching to the world ? But is this done by 
them? No; it is not said by any one of them,. that 
Hades is a place of torment. The uniform usage of 
the word Hades in the New Testament, like the usage 
of Sheol in the Old, forbids the common interpreta- 
tion. The use of this word in the parable before us, 
is the only exception. The truth of this assertion is 
seen from all the passages about Hades already con- 
sidered ; and we shall see that it is not contradicted 
by any of them yet to be introduced,. Supposing it 



THE WORD HADES. 65 

then a fact, that in this parable our Lord teaches for 
the first time, that Hades is a place of torment, and 
that his apostles so understood it, what is the course 
wc ought to expect them, as preachers, to pursue? I 
answer, just the very same course which preachers in 
our day take, who believe this parable to teach the 
doctrine of future misery, that they should often 
preach the doctrine, and recur to this parable of our 
Lord about it. But the apostles never did this. We 
must either conclude then that modern preachers mis- 
understand this parable, or that our Lord's apostles 
were not faithful to the souls of men. 

4th, But how is this representation of Hades being 
a place of torment, to be accounted for, in opposition 
to the uniform usage of this word in the New Testa- 
ment, and also of Sheol in the Old? To this I an- 
swer, that Hades is a Greek word ; and as the ancient 
Greeks looked on Hades as a place in which men 
would be punished or rewarded, there is nothing very 
strange tha-t our Lord should introduce this notion of 
theirs when speaking of the dead in Hades. But for 
what we have to advance about this, we refer to the 
next section; and also for some additional remarks 
there made in regard to this parable. 

5th, If our Lord alluded to the heathen notion, that 
Hades was a place of torment, as we think he did, 
yet it is evident that he did not recognise it as a fact, 
or teach it as a doctrine to be believed by his follow- 
ers. This we think is evident, from a variety of con- 
siderations, one or two of which we shall merely men- 
tion. It is very improbable that he should transplant 
this doctrine from the Pagan religion, and make it a 
part of his. Was Jesus indebted to the heathens for 
inventing a part of the doctrines which he taught? 
As this will not be asserted, we notice further, that both 
Christ, and other sacred writers, allude to, and even 
-speak according to the popular opinions of the day* 
6* 



tJ6 AN INaUIRY INTO 

without sanctioning those opinions. This has bqerr 
shown above. But what we think conclusive about 
this, is, that had the apostles understood our Lord as 
recognising this heathen notion^ and adopting it as a 
part of his religion, they would have taught it in their 
writings to the world. But this they have not done^. 
If they had then, as many preachers do now, consid- 
ered this parable as a strong proof of hell torments, 
how are we to account for their silence about it? I 
think I may be allowed also to ask, how are we to ac- 
count for the difference between their preaching and 
that of modern preaching about hell torments, and/ 
that too from this very parable ? I confess my inabil- 
ity to account for these things, if this parable teaches 
the doctrine. I can account for both if this is not true* 
Though most readers of the Bible build their faith 
on this parable, as to the place, and the nature of fu- 
ture punishment, yet the learned know, and as we 
have seen, confess, that Hades is to be destroyed* 
This we have seen from Hosea xiii. 1 4. 1 Cor. xv. 55. 
and also from quotations made from Dr. Campbell and 
others, above. ' Dr. Whitby denies that Hades is a 
receptacle of souls. Gehenna is contended for by Dr. 
Campbell and others, as the place of eternal punish- 
ment. That Gehenna and Hades are not the same 
place, I shall show, afterwards, I think, to the satis- 
faction of every candid man. All then which any 
person can draw from this parable, is, that Hades is 
a place of punishment in an intermediate state, but 
not of endless duration. This was sufficiently evident 
from our first remarks. Whether the additional ob- 
servations made, prove the incorrectness of this com- 
mon opinion, it is not for me to decide. How the fal- 
lacy of my observations is to be shown, and the com- 
mon opinion established by rational evidence, my 
present degree of knowledge docs not enable me to 
perceive. Besides, how the statements, and the evi- 



T.HE 'WORD HADES. 67 

den€e produced by the above critics, can ever be rec- 
onciled with the doctrine commonly drawn from this 
parable, must be left for others to determine. It is far 
above my powers to attempt such a reconciliation. "^ 

Matth. xvi. 18. i« the next passage in which Hades 
occurs.— " Upon this rock 1 will build my church; 
and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." All 
that need be said on this passage, Dr. Campbell fur- 
nishes us with. He says, — '' it is by death, and by it 
only, the spirit enters into Hades. The gates of Hades 
is therefore a very natural periphrasis for death. To 
say then that the gates ojf Hades shall not prevail 
against the church, is in other words to say, it shall 
never die, it shall never be extinct." See Dissert, vi*. 
sect, 17. — There is only one remark I would make,- 
in passing, on this quotation from the Dr. He say^^ 
— " it is by death, and by it only,. the spirit enters in- 
to Hades." We do not recollect a single text where 
it is said the spirit enters into Hades. It is said the 
Saviour's soul was not left in Hades. But we shall 
attempt to show afterwards that the Scriptures make 
a distincti6n between soul and spirit^ and though the 
soul is represented as in Hades, yet the spirit is never- 
so represented* Indeed we have seen from Whitby's 
quotation on Acts ii. 27, that he denies Hades to have 
been considered a receptacle of souls by the Old Tes- 
tament writers. If it was, it is evident fi-om the Scrip- 
ture usage of the word Sheol, that it was not a recep- 
tacle of souls, where any of them were tormented. 

Luke X. 15. comes next to be considered. "And 
thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shall 
be thrust down to hell." See the parallel text, Matth. 
xi. 23. which 1 need not transcribe. Here again, Dr. 

* See additional proof that this is a parable, and that it does not 
teadi a state of future misery, in my Reply to Mr. Sabine's discourses^ 
«oon to be published. 



68 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Campbell furnishes all that is necessary to be said on 
these passages. In the above quoted Dissertation, he 
thus writes, — '' as the city of Capernaum was never 
literally raised to heaven, we have no reason to be- 
lieve that it was to be literally brought down to Hades. 
But as by the former expression we are given to un- 
derstand that it was to become a flourishing and splen- 
did city, or, as some think, that it had iDbtained great 
spiritual advantages; so by the latter, that it should 
be brought to the low^est degree of abasement and 
wretchedness." But how often has this passage been 
quoted to prove that Capernaum, and all who have 
abused great privileges, shall be brought down to a 
place of endless misery. . Indeed this is the common 
use which is made of this passage, even in the present 
day. It is certainly to be regretted, that if the doc- 
trine oi endless misery can be fairly proved true from 
the Scriptures, that men should thus quote and misap- 
ply texts in its support. 

Rev* i. 18. is the next passage.—"! am he that liv- 
eth, and was dead; and behold 1 am alive for ever- 
more, amen ; and have the keys of hell and of death.'^ 
This Jesus said of himself. That Hades or hell here 
simply means the state of the dead, we think none will 
dispute. This is the same hell in which the Saviour^s 
soul was not left, and considered above on Acts ii. 27. 
and Psalm xvi. 10. The expression, "keys of hell 
or Hades,'' appears to be in allusion to the ancient 
custom of inducting a person into office by delivering 
him a key. The steward of the family had the keys 
of the house committed to him, and he had power 
over it, to manage its temporal concerns. Peter had 
the keys of the kingdom of heaven given him, or pow- 
er to open it, as we find he did on the day of Pente- 
cost, to the Jews, and afterwards to the Gentiles, in 
the house of Cornelius. Jesus proved that he had 
the keys of Hades and of death, by his rising from 



THE WORD HADES. b^ 

the deaxl, or that he had power over death and the 
grave. JBut all know that this text has been often 
quoted to show that Jesus has the keys of hell or the 
place of endless misery, and can shut up whom he 
pleases in it. What is it. men may not prove from 
the Bible, if quotations made from it at this random 
rate are admitted as evidence? 

Rev. vi. 8* comes next to be noticed. — " And I 
looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that 
sat on him was death, and hell followed with him.'^ 
It is beyond all fair debate, that Hades follows death 
to all men, whether good or bad* D€ath brings all 
men to Hades, or the- house appointed for all the liv- 
ing. But does death bring any persons to Gehenna? 
No ; we may challenge the whole world to produce a 
text, in which it is said that any, good or bad, go to 
Gehenna at death. But we all know that it is believ- 
ed by most people, that at death the wicked go to 
hell, and by this is meant a place of endless misery. 
Not a word of this is true ; for Hades, and not Gehen- 
na, follows death; and we think it has been proved 
that Hades is not a place of endless misery. After 
w^hat has been said on the parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus, we must receive some new light on the 
subject, before we can believe it to be a place of any 
misery at all. If it can be proved to be a place of 
endless misery, or even a place of temporary punish- 
ment, we shall give the evidence of this a candid and 
careful consideration. See Chap. ii. about Gehenna. 

Rev. XX. 13, 14. is the last passage in v/hich Hades 
occurs in the New Testament. — ''And the sea gave 
up the dead which were in it; and death and hell 
delivered up the dead which were in them; and they 
were judged, every man according to their works. 
And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire* 
.This is the second death."' As I hav^ considered^ 
this text in a separate Inquiry into the import of th^a 



70 AN INQUIRY INTO 

expressions, "lake of fire," and " second death," I 
shall only make a few brief remarks on this passage 
here, so far as the term Hades or hell requires atten- 
tion. 

1st, The first remark on this passage, I make, is — 
that one of two things must be abandoned as unscrip- 
tural, by those who believe in the doctrine of eternal 
misery. They must either give up the idea that 
Hades or hell is a place of eternal misery, or that the 
lake of fire is. To say that both are places of eternal 
misery, makes the Bible speak of two such places; 
and at the period of which John speaks, it makes him 
say that hell is cast into hell, or one place of eternal 
misery, is cast into another place of eternal misery. 
I am not disposed to believe that John ever used such 
inconsistent language. On this passage. Dr. Camp- 
bell, in the above quoted Dissertation, thus writes: 
"indeed, in this sacred book, the commencement, as 
well as the destruction of this intermediate state, are 
so clearly marked, as to render it almost impossible 
to mistake them. In a preceding chapter, vi. 8. we 
learn that Hades follows close at the heels of death ; 
and from the other passage quoted, that both are in- 
volved in one common ruin at the universal judgment. 
Whereas, if we interpret Hades /le//, in the Christian 
sense of the word, the whole passage is rendered non- 
sense, jy^pi/ is represented as being cast into hell: 
for so the lake of fire, which is in this place also de- 
nominated the second death, is universally interpret- 
ed." I shall only here remark, that while the Dr. 
and others clearly prove that neither Sheol nor Hades 
signifies this place of endless misery, all he advances 
in proof that Gehenna and the lake of fire refer to it, 
is only bare assertion. It is very easy to prove any 
thing, if assertions are to be considered proof; but 
this will not do in the present day. The Bible was 
never more critically examined than it is now. The 



THE WOR© HADES. Tl 

man who thinks his assertions are proof on any sub- 
ject of religion, may find, and he ought to find, that 
they are just good for nothing. The persons who be- 
lieve his assertions, are a disgrace to religion 9 and if 
they are any honour to him, he is welcome to all the 
honour such converts to implicit faith can confer upon 
him. 

2d, Instead of Hades or hell being here represent- 
ed as a place of torment to others, itself is here spok- 
en of as being destroyed 5 and before this takes place, 
it is said to deliver up all the dead which are in it. 
It is very evident that Hades here simply means the 
grave. But, having fully considered this passage in 
another Inquiry, and these remarks being sufficient to 
show that Hades does not mean a place of endless 
misery, we give it no further attention. 

These are all the passages in which the New Tes- 
tament writers use the word Hades, and which is 
once translated grave, and ten times hell in the com- 
mon version. We think all must admit, that it is 
never used to express a place of endless misery ; and 
some evidence has been given that it is never used to 
express a place of punishment of any kind. In con- 
nexion with the remarks made on the word Sheol, I 
shall add the following here. 

1st, It will not be disputed by any man, that what 
the Hebrew writers of the Old Testament expressed 
by the word Sheol, the Greeks expressed by the word 
Hades. 

2d, But observe, that the heathen Greeks seemed 
not only to have attached similar ideas to the word 
Hades, as the Hebrew writers did to the word Sheol, 
but also the additional idea, that in Hades persons 
were punished or rewarded, according to their merits 
or demerits in the present world. This was their 
own addition ; for no such idea seems to be conveyed 
in all the Old Testament, by the word Sheol. The 



72 AN INQUIRY INT€ 

evidence of this adduced above, we think will be al- 
lowed cond js.ve. If the Jews did not imbibe the idea, 
that Hades was a place of punishment, from the hea- 
then, let it be shown from what source they derived 
this information. The doctrine must be either from 
heaven or of men. 1 have attempted to prove that it is 
not Irom heaven. It becomes those who believe it, 
to show ihat it is not of men, or cease from believing 
it, and from quoting the texts in which Sheol and 
Hades occur, in proof of it. The very circumstance, 
that only Hades, and not Sheol, is represented as a 
place of torment, shows in part, that this doctrine is 
of heathen origin. Hades is a Greek word; and it 
is well known that Greek was the language of the hea- 
then, and Hebrew^ that of the Jews. There is nothing 
then, but what we ought to expect, in the use of the 
term Hades in the New Testament. It was a Greek 
word, and this additional idea attached to it was in 
familiar use among the Jews as well as Greeks, Be- 
sides, the Jews had blended many of the heathen no- 
tions with their :own religion. If we then find the 
New Testament writers, in using the Greek word 
Hades, speak as if this was a place of punishment, it 
is easily accounted for-, without admitting that they 
believed any such thing, or wished to inculcate this 
doctrine as a part of divine revelation. But of this 
they have been very sparing; for only in the para- 
ble of the rich man and Lazarus, can it be supposed 
there is any allusion to any such idea. All the other 
places where they use the term Hades, it is plain no 
such doctrine seems to be hinted at, but the reverse. 
In face of these facts and circumstances, and current 
usage of the word Hades, w^e think it would be well 
for persons to pause and reflect, before they attempt 
to establish the doctrine of future misery from- the 
language, of a parable. If a Universalist was to at- 
tempt to establish his views from the language of a 



THE WORD HADES. 73 

parable, and in face of so much evidence to the con- 
trary, he would be considered as driven to the last 
extremity for proof in support of his system, and that 
finally it must be abandoned as indefensible. But 
with most people this parable is considered as the 
most plain and conclusive part of Scripture, in proof 
of a place of endless misery. It is considered more con- 
clusive than any, or even all the passages which speak 
of Gehenna. What critics and orthodox commenta- 
tors give up as no proof of the doctrine, by the least 
informed, is considered as the very strongest. Here, 
say they, is a person actually in a future state, and 
said to be "'tormented in this flame." In fact, com- 
mon readers of the Bible are not to blame in drawing 
such a conclusion; for this passage has more plausi- 
bility in proving the doctrine, than all other texts 
put together. 

3d, Since neither Sheol nor Hades, nor even the 
word hell, in English, originally signified a place of 
endless misery, we have a few questions to put to 
those who believe in this doctrine. We ask, then, 
is it not a perversion of the divine oracles, to quote 
any of the texts in which Sheol or Hades occurs, to 
prove it? It is well known that such texts are often 
tjuoted for this purpo^€. But I ask again, is it not a 
very great imposition upon the ignorant, to quote 
such texts in proof of this doctrine? The simple, hon- 
est-hearted English reader of his Bible, sees the word 
hell often used by the sacred writers. He has been 
taught from a child, that hell means a place of endless 
misery for the wicked. Every book he reads, every 
sermon he hears, all t^nd to deepen his early impres- 
sions, and confirm him in this opinion. Those who 
know better, are not much disposed to undeceive him. 
On the one hand, they are perhaps deterred from it 
by a false fear of distuniing public opinion, and on 
the other, by reluctance to encounter the odium of the 
^ 7 



74 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Christian public, in being looked on as heretics. Se- 
lect the most celebrated preacher you can find, and 
let him frankly tell his audience, that neither Sheol, 
nor Hades, nor even our word hell originally meant a 
plac€ of endless misery, and his celebrity is at an 
end. He would from that moment be considered as 
an heretic, and his former admirers would now be his 
warm opposers. But I ask again, and 1 solemnly put 
it to every man's conscience, who professes to fear 
God, — Ought not men to be honestly told the truth 
about this, let the consequences be what they may ? 
Are we at liberty to pervert the Scriptures in favor of 
any sect, or system in the world ? Must we be guilty 
of a pious fraud, in concealing from people what they 
ought to know, because the disclosure may excite 
popular prejudices against ourselves, and afford cause 
of suspicion that the doctrine of endless misery is not 
true ? If it be true^ it can and must be supported from 
other texts than those in which Sheol and Hades are 
used. Perhaps some may think, if all those texts ar^ 
given up, some of the principal supports of the doc- 
trine are removed. Well, allowing this true, w^ould 
any one wish to retain them, but such as are deter- 
' mined to hold fast the doctrine of eternal misery at 
all hazards ? It is a false system of religion, or those 
who embrace it do not know how to defend it, who 
wish to support it by perverting a single text of Scrip- 
ture. To found the doctrine of endless misery on 
the texts which speak of Sheol or Hades, is building 
on the sand. When the building is assailed by rea- 
son and argument, and an appeal to the Bible, it must 
fall, if it has no better support. Even if it could be 
proved true from other texts, this is calculated to 
bring the doctrine into suspicion. 

4th, The translators of our common English ver- 
sion, appear to have had more correct ideas about 



THE WORD HADES. 76 

Sheol, Hades, or hell, than most people who read 
their translation. They certainly were at some pains 
to guard us against attaching to the word hell, the 
idea of a place of endless misery. In many places 
where they render Sheol and Hades by the word 
hell, they have put grave in the margin. Besides ; 
let it be remembered, that the word hell originally 
signified the same as Sheol and Hades. It was then 
the very best word they could use in rendering these 
two words. If men have affixed a different sense to 
the word hell, the translators are not to blame. Ad- 
mitting that when our translation was made, it had ac- 
quired the sense of a place of endless misery, what 
could the translators do but use this word in render- 
ing Sheol and Hades* It meant the same as those 
words originally ; and to prevent misunderstanding, 
they frequently put grave in the margin. They no 
doubt thought that this, together with the context, 
was security against all misapprehension. Unfortu- 
nately this has not been the case. But no blame at- 
taches to them, for they must in this case have either 
coined a new word, expressed themselves by a cir- 
cumlocution, used always the word grave, or left 
these words untranslated. I am inclined to think, 
that if Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, had 
been left untranslated in the common version, very few, 
if any, would ever have thought that by any of these 
words a place of eternal misery was meant. Every 
reader would then have been obliged to consult the 
context, wherever these words were used, to attain 
the sense of the writer. Obliged to do this, he 
would soon have become familiar with them, and must 
have seen, from the way in which they were used, 
that the idea of a place of endless misery was never 
intended to be conveyed by them. But here are four 
words all rendered by the word Ae//, and this word is 



76 AN INaUIRY INTO 

allowed not to mean originally a place of misery, but 
the concealed place. Let anyone go over all the 
texts where these words are found, and put this re- 
mark to a fair trial. It is true, that our translators^ 
in rendering the word Gehenna, have also used the 
word hell. But here again, what could they do, for 
this word had acquired a new sense from its original 
signification. This new sense they supposed answer- 
ed to the word Gehenna, considered as the place of 
endless misery.. Here they were under the necessity 
of either again coining a new word, leaving Gehenne^r 
untranslated, or expressing themselves by a circumlo- 
cution. We doubt if the translators were at liberty to 
<Jo any of thesp, without shocking public prejudice, 
and exciting the displeasure of those in high author- 
ity, under whose patronage they made their transla- 
tion. They were not left at liberty to give us the 
best translation, which their own judgments, and the 
progress of Biblical criticism, even at that day, could 
have afforded. In proof of this, see the king's in- 
structions to the translators. 

5th, Several very serious evils arise from under- 
standing Sheol or Hades to mean a place of endless 
misery. In the first place, it is a perversion of those 
texts in which these words occur. This perversion 
of them leads to a misunderstanding of many others. 
By this means the knowledge such texts convey, is 
not only lost, but our knowledge of the word of God 
is greatly retarded, and our minds are perplexed and 
embarrassed on other connected subjects. Every 
text of Scripture misunderstood, lays a foundation for 
a misunderstanding ofc others ; and thus error is not 
only rendered perpetual but progressive. But this is 
not all. Understanding Sheol and Hades to mean a 
place of endless misery, is perverting God's word to 
caricature himself. It is putting our own sense on 



THE WORD HADES. 77 

his words, to make him say things against ourselves 
which he never intended. It is giving a false colour 
to the language of the Bible, that we may support 
the false views we entertain of his character, an#Iiis 
dealings with the children of men. 

6th, I may just add about Hades what was noticed 
about Sheol, that we never find the words eternal, 
everlasting, or forever, used in connexion with it, or 
concerning it.. We never read of an everlasting or 
eternal Hades or hell, or that men are to be punished 
in.it forever. Nothing like this is to found in Scrip- 
ture. Such epithets added to the word hell, found in 
books and sermons, are among the improvements in 
divinity which man's wisdom teacheth. The word 
hell is first perverted from its original signification, 
and then the word eternal is added to it, to make the 
punishment of endless duration. 



7* 



SECTION IIL 



2; PETER II. 4. CONSIDERED, 



THE third word which is translated hell^ in the 
common version, is Tartarus. It occurs only once, 
and is found, 2 Peter ii. 4. — '^For if God spared not 
the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell,, 
and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be re- 
served unto judgment." The quotation from Dr. 
Campbell, to which I alluded in my remarks on the 
parable of the rich man and Lazarus, I shall now in- 
troduce. It is a quotation which ought to arrest no- 
tice, because it not only gives us information about 
the origin of Hades as a place of punishment, but as- 
sists us in explaining both that parable and the pas- 
sage before us. He thus writes : — Dissert, vi. part 
2. sect. 19. — "But is there not one passage, it may 
be said, in which the word u^i^^ must be understood 
as synonymous with j/ggvv^st, and consequently must 
denote the place of final punishment prepared for 
the wicked, or hell in the Christian acceptation of the 
term? Ye have it in the story of the rich man and 
Lazarus, Luke xvi. 23. ^ In hell^ gv rco dSv]^ he lifted 
up his eyes^ being in torments^ and seeth Abraham afar off 
and Lazarus in his bosom^ This is the only passage 
in Holy Writ which seems to give countenance to the 
opinion ih^i cl^y\<; sometimes means the same thing as 
ytinoc. Here it is represented as a place of punish- 



AN INQUIRY I^NTO THE WORD TARTARUS. 79 

ment. The rich man is said to be tormented there 
in the midst of flames. These things will deserve to 
be examined narrowly. It is plain, that in the Old 
Testament, the most profound silence is observed in 
regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sor- 
rows, happiness or misery. It is represented to us 
rather by negative qualities than by positive, by its 
silence, its darkness, its being inaccessible, unless by 
preternatural means, to the living, and their igno- 
rance about it. Thus much in general seems always 
to have been presumed concerning it, that it is not a 
state of activity adapted for exertion, or indeed for 
the accomplishment of any important purpose, good 
or bad. In most respects, however, there was a re- 
semblance in their notions on this subject, to those of 
the most ancient heathen. 

''• But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of heathen^ 
remained invariably the same. And from the time of the 
captivity^ more especially from the time of the subjec-- 
lion of the Jews^ first to the Macedonian empire^ and 
afterwards to the Roman; as they had a closer inter- 
course with Pagans^ they insensibly imbibed many of 
their sentiments^ particularly on those subjects whereon 
their law was silent^ and wherein^ by consequence^ they 
considered themselves as at greater freedom. On this 
subject of a future state, we find a considerable differ- 
ence in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Saviour'^ s 
time^ from (hose which prevailed in the days of the an- 
cient prophets. As both Greeks and Romans had adopt- 
ed the notion^ that the ghosts of the departed were sus- 
ceptible both of enjoyment and of sufferings they were 
led to suppose a sort of retribution in that state^for their 
merit or demerit in the present. The Jews did not in- 
deed adopt the Pagan fables on this subject^ nor did they 
express themselves entirely in the same manner ; but the. 
general train of thinking in both came pretty much to 
coincide. The Greek hades they found well adapted ta 



^0 AN INQUIRY INTO 

express the Hebrew sheol. This they came to conceive as 
including different sorts of habitations for ghosts of dif- 
ferent characters. And though they did not receive the 
terms Elysium or Elysian fields^ as suitable appella- 
tions for the regions peopleci by good spirits, they tdok 
instead of them, as better adapted to their own the- 
ology, the garden of Eden^ or Paradise^ a name orig- 
inally Persian, by which the word answering to gar- 
den^ especially when applied to Eden, had commonly 
been rendered by the Seventy. To denote the same 
state, they sometimes used the phrase Abraham'^s bosom^ 
a metaphor borrowed from the manner in which they 
reclined at meals. But, on the other hand, to express 
the unhappy situation of the wicked in that interme- 
diate state, they do not seem to have declined the use 
of the word Tartarus. The apostle Peter, 2 Ep. ii^ 
4. says of evil angels, that ^ God cast them down tohell^ 
and delivered them into chains of darkness^ to be reserved 
unto judgment.'^ So it stands in the common version, 
thougl^ neither j^ggw^ nor d^vig are in the original, 
where the expression is ca^uig ^oCpov roc^ruc^cocug Trcc^i- 
^wjcsv g/? K^icriv T£T);f>jjUgvoi'r« The word is notj^egvv^; for 
that comes after judgment ; but rcc^rcc^og^ which is, as 
it were, the prison of Hades, wherein criminals are 
kept till the general judgment. And as, in the ordi- 
nary use of the Greek word, it was comprehended 
under Hades^ a's a part, it ought, unless we had some 
positive reason to the contrary, by the ordinary rules 
of interpretation, to be understood so here. There is 
then no inconsistency in maintaining that the rich 
man, though in torments, was not in Gehenna^ but in 
that part of Hades called Tartarus^ where we have 
seen already that spirits reserved for judgment are 
detained in darkness." 

This quotation from Dr. Campbell, affords matter 
for many remarks, a few of which 1 shall briefly no-^ 
tice. 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 8t 

1st, He declares, that the parable of the rich man 
and Lazarus, is the only place in Holy Writ, which 
seems to give countenance to the opinion, that Hades 
sometimes means" the same thing as Gehenna. We 
ha^ seen already,^ that he denies that Hades is the 
place of eternal punishment ; and that he contends for 
Gehenna being this place we shall see in the next 
chapter. 

2d, He declares that, — "it is plain that in the Old 
Testament, the most profound silence is observed in 
regard to the state of the deceased, their joys or sor- 
rows, happiness or misery." if the Old Testament 
maintains 'Sl profound silence on this subject, it ought to 
be inquired, 

3d, How did the Jews in our Lord's day, come to 
consider Hades as a place of punishment for the 
wicked? That a change in their opinions on this sub- 
ject, had taken place from what is contained in the 
Old Testament is evident ; for he says, — .'' on this sub- 
ject of a future state, we fin<} a considerable differ- 
ence in the popular opinions of the Jews in our Sav- 
iour's time', from those which prevailed in the days of 
the ancient prophets." Well, how did this change in 
their opinions take place ? Was it by some new rev- 
elation which God made to them on this subject? No 
such thing is stated by Dr. Campbell, but the reverse .^ 
He thus accounts for the change of their opinions. 
"But the opinions neither of Hebrews nor of heath- 
en, remained invariably the same. And from the time 
of the captivity, more especially from the time of the 
subjection of the Jews, first to the Macedonian em- 
pire, and afterwards to the Roman ; as they had a 
closer intercourse with Pagans, they insensibly imbib- 
ed many of their sentiments, particularly on those 
subjects whereon their law was silent, and wherein, 
by consequence, they considered themselves as at 
greater freedom. As both Greeks and Romans had 



82 AN INQUIRY INTO 

adopted the notion, that the ghosts of the deceased 
were susceptible both of enjoyment and of suffering, 
they were led to suppose a sort of retribution in that 
state, for their merit or demerit in the present. The 
Jews did not indeed adopt the Pagan fables on this 
subject, nor did they express themselves entirely in 
the same manner ; but their general train of thinking 
in both came pretty much to coincide." — This state- 
ment is surely too plain to be misunderstood. How 
much plainer could he have told ns, that a punish- 
ment in Hades was a mere heathen notion^ which the 
Jews learned from their intercourse with them ? Could 
this have been more obvious had he said so in as ma- 
ny words? We presume no man will deny this. He 
not only declares that neither Sheol nor Hades is 
used in Scripture to express a place of punishment, 
but he shows, that the Pagan fables teach it, and the 
Jews learned it from them. What are we then to 
think, when this is the account of the origin of the 
doctrine of hell torments by one of its professed 
friends ? Had this statement been given by a profess- 
ed Universalist, the cry would be raised that it was 
a mere fabrication of his own, in support of his sys- 
tem. But no, this is the statement of the learned, and 
acute Dr. Campbell, late principal of Marischal col- 
lege, Aberdeen, who lived and died, a celebrated the- 
ologian in the church of Scotland. It is notorious, 
that in this quotation he declares, that the Jews de- 
rived these opinions from their intercourse with the 
heathen. Where they got those opinions he does not 
inform us. Had they been from divine revelation, the 
heathen ought to have learned them from the Jews. 
But here the matter is reversed. The heathen it seems 
anticipated divine revelation, as to the doctrine of 
punishment in Hades. They revealed it to the Jews 
by means of their fables. The Jews it is said* — "did 
not adopt their fables, nor did they express them- 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 83 

selves entirely in the same manner, but their general 
train of thinking came pretty much to coincide." That 
man must be very dull, who does not learn from this, 
that the doctrine of torment in Hades, had its origin 
in heathenism, and, that the Jews were ignorant of it, 
until they learned it from the heathen. — From all this, 
will it be easy for any one to resist the conviction, 
that to this popular opinion, which the Jews had im- 
bibed from their intercourse with the heathen, our 
Lord alluded in his parable of the rich man and Laz* 
arus ? Such were the popular notions of the Jews in 
our Lord's day; and to what else could he allude? 
The Old Testament, as we have seen, taught no such 
doctrine, and in the parable it is not introduced as a 
new revelation to the world. It is merely brought in 
as a part of its imagery, and that without asserting its 
truth, or exposing the erroneous notion which people 
had imbibed. He no more attempts to correct this 
Pagan notion, than the common opinion, that satan 
had bound a woman eighteen years with an infirmity. 
4th> Dr. Campbell further declares, that though the 
Jews did not adopt the Pagan fables on this subject, 
yet their train of thinking pretty much coincided with 
theirs. '^ The Greek Hades they found well adapted 
to express the Hebrew SheoL This they came to 
conceive as including different sorts of haVjitations for 
ghosts of different characters.'' They did not adopt 
the terms Elysium, or Elysian fields, to express the 
regions of good spirits, but he says, " they do not seem 
to have declined the use of the word Tartarus" to ex- 
press the unhappy situation of the wicked in an in- 
termediate state. The text, and indeed the only text 
he could adduce as an example of this, is the passage 
under consideration. Concerning the word Tartarus 
in this text, he says — ^' the word is not Gehenna, for 
that comes after judgment, but Tartarus, which is, as 
it were, the prison of Hades, wherein criminals are 



^^4 AN INQUIRY INTO 

kept till the general judgment." That a punishment 
in Hades is a Pagan notion, which the Jews derived 
from the heathen, we have the authority of Dr. Camp- 
bell in the above quotation. That Tartarus was the 
prison of Hades, is derived from the same origin, for 
it is no where so represented in Scripture, if pun- 
ishment in Hades be a Pagan notion, Tartarus, the 
prison of Hades, is only a part of the same Pagan 
notion. It is only the prison of Hades, says Dr. 
Campbell, in which criminals are kept till the gener- 
al judgment ; but after this, Gehenna is to be the place 
of eternal punishment for all the wicked. And why 
make Gehenna the place of their punishment after this 
period ? Dr. Campbell, we have seen from the pre- 
ceding sections, had shown that Hades, and no doubt 
its prison also, were to be destroyed, and be no more. 
What then is to be done with the criminals which had 
been confined in this prison ? They are not then to 
be released, and made happy, therefore some other 
place of pimishment must be provided for their re- 
ception. He provides for thiem an everlasting asylum 
in Gehenna, after the day of judgment. They must 
be sent somewhere after this period, and no place so 
suitable could be devised as Gehenna. But whether 
it be a very happy device, in establishing the doc- 
trine of eternal niisery, we hope will appear from the 
next chapter. AH that we wish noticed here, is, that 
at the day of judgment we shall have done with Hades^ 
and Tartarus^ the pnson of Hades ^ and all punishment 
in them, for they are to be no more. If this be true, 
and we think it will not be disputed, Gehenna is the 
only place of eternal punishment for the finally im- 
penitent. This is not only the opinion of the authors 
we have quoted, but we believe is the general opinion 
of all the learned. Rut though many contend for 
Hades being a place of intermediate punishment, and 
in the above quotation Tartarus is made the prison <rf" 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 85 

this place, where criminals are kept till the day of 
judgment, yet in the passage before us, no other be- 
ings but the angels that sinned are said to be sent to 
it. Not a word is said about the rich man in the par- 
able as being there ; no ; nor of any other beings in 
the universe of God. Moreover, it is not even said, 
that those angels who sinned are punished there 5 they 
are only reserved for judgment in chains of darkness. 
Now what does all this amount to, in proving the doc- 
trine of eternal misery? Tartarus is part of Hades, 
or the prison of this place, according to the above 
account of Dr. Campbell. He tells us that the place 
is to be destroyed; and he tells us further, that the 
idea of punishment in Hades, the Jews learned from 
their intercourse with the heathen. I should consid- 
er it trifling with the reader's understanding to pur- 
sue this subject further, in adducing proof that nei- 
ther SheoU Hades, nor Tartarus^ was used by the in- 
spired writers to express a place of eternal punish- 
ment. Gehenna^ is the place contended for by Dr. 
Campbell and others, who believe in this doctrine ; 
and whatever way the place of supposed temporary 
punishment may be understood, it is with Gehenna I 
am principally concerned. 

Though enough has been said, showing that pun- 
ishment in Hades was a heathen notion, and not sanc- 
tioned by divine revelation, it may be of some use to 
see what were the views entertained by the ancient 
heathen about Hades ;ind Tart;irns. M. Le Clerc, in 
his Religion of the Ancient Greeks, p. 147^ — 154. thus 
writes: — " In general, the doctrine of a future life has 
been adopted by all nations, at least by ail those that 
deserve to be cited as examples. Legislators consid- 
ered it as the most effectual curb for restraining the 
passions of men, and they have employed every ar- 
gument to establish this salutary doctrine, as we may 
8 



M€ ^ AN INQUIRY INTO 

be convinced by attending to the descriptions which 
the ancients have left us of hell. 

" This word signified among them the residence of 
souls. Thither, after death, they repaired in crowds 
to receive remuneration for their deeds. Minos sat 
as judge, and as the names weredrawn out of the fatal 
urn, he distributed to each his merited punishment or 
reward. Pluto, seated on a throne of ebony, presided 
over the infernal regions; because, as we have al- 
ready observed, in the symbolical religion of the an- 
cients, part of which was dedicated to the worship of 
the stars, winter was the night of nature, and because 
the sun at that time took the name of King of the 
Shades. For this reason Pluto, who represented the 
sun, makes so important a figure in mysteries destined 
to describe the empire of the dead. That gloomy 
region was situated at an immense distance, far be- 
yond the limits of this universe. According to the 
author of the Theogony,* 'as far as the heaven is 
distant from the earth, so far is the earth removed 
from the dark abyss. A mass of iron, falling from 
the top of the starry heavens, would take nine days 
and nine nights before it reached the surface of the 
earth ; and it would require the same time in falling 
from thence to Tartarus,' the place destined for the 
punishment of the wicked. 

"This frightful abode was said to be twice as deep 
as it is distant from the brilliant summit of Olympus. 
It was surrounded by a triple wall, it was bathed by 
the flaming waters of Cocytus and of Phlegethon, and 
towers of iron guarded the entrance. The cruel 
Tysiphone watched night and day at the gate, armed 
wnth serpents, which she shook over the heads of the 
guilty. Their groans, their doleful cries, mixed with 
the sound of their stripes, cause the wide abyss t© 

• HesiO(J, Tl.eog. v. 720. 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 8t^ 

resound. There are forever shut up the impious Ti- 
tans, and those no less audacious mortals who dared 
to resist the divinity; Tityus, Ixion, Pirithous, and 
the impious Salmoneous* Perjury, adultery, incest, 
and parricide, are likewise punished ; and those whose 
life has been sulhed with odious crimes ; those who 
have not respected the ties of blood, who have waged 
unjust wars, who have sold their country ; those who 
have dared to commit enormous wickedness, and en- 
joyed the fruit of their crimes, are all consigned to 
the most cruel torments. 

" A less rigorous fate was reserved for him who had 
been guilty of smaller offences, or who, having com* 
mitted crimes, had given signs of repentance. It was 
necessary that he should be punished till he had ex- 
piated them; but when he had been in some sort re- 
generated and cleansed from the impurities contract- 
ed by guilt, he was admitted into the abodes of the 
blessed. 

''^That place of delights was admirably contrasted 
with the dismal regions of Tartarus. The ground 
sparkled with gold and precious stones; its fertile 
plains were watered with a multitude of never-failing 
streams, which maintained a perpetual verdure. The 
flowers of spring were mixed with the rich fruits of 
autumn. A sky forever serene and unclouded, a sun 
and stars from which incessantly flowed streams of 
living light; and, in fine, all the objects which the 
most brilliant imagination could conceive, were col- 
lected to embellish those happy plains. They were 
inhabited by virtuous men, the friends of justice, who 
had served their country, and cultivated the useful 
art»; they tasted a pleasure which nothing could em- 
bitter; and the remembrance of the virtues they had 
practised on earth was for them a continual source of 
felicity. In the midst of the unmingled pleasures they 
enjoyed, they exercised themselves in the occupations 



88 AN INi^UIRY INTO 

which during life had obtained them the gratitude of 
their countrymen. The legislator contemplated the 
principles of that august and eternal law of which he 
had before but a glimpse; and the assembly of the 
just that surrounded him, were attentive to his instruc- 
tions. The sight of arms, even in the bosom of peace 
and tranquillity, recalled to the remembrance of the 
hero those battles which he had fought in defence of 
his country ; while the poet, who had consecrated his 
harp to the worship of the gods, celebrated anew, in 
celestial strains, the power and benignity of the im- 
mortals. 

" We may conceive what impression these images 
would make on the mind, when unceasingly presented 
to the. eyes from earliest infancy. It is not to be 
doubted, that if the hope of felicity unbounded lead& 
to virtue, the idea of endless punishment must have a 
still stronger influence on the conduct. The religion 
of the ancients, which to us appears of so light a 
nature that we are apt to believe its only end was ta 
flatter the senses, yet employed the most proper means 
for restraining the outrageous multitude. It alarmed 
them on all sides with the most frightful representa- 
tions. A poet of antiquity* paints, in the strongest 
colours, that continual terror which takes possession ' 
of the human heart, which disturbs and poisons the 
pleasures of life, and which in every part of the earth 
has erected temples for the purpose of conciliating 
the gods. Plato, in the beginning of the first book 
of his Republic, represents an old man seized with 
fear at the approach of death, and full of inquietude 
with regard to objects that never occupy the s^eason 
of health. Then it is, says he, that we reflect on our 
crimes, on the injustice we have committed, and that 
often, in our agitation, we start in our sleep^ and are 

•Lucretius, lib. 5. 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 



8S 



frightened like children. As soon as some were found 
nmong the ancients who had overcome these fears, it 
was pretended that such had never existed among 
them : we might as reasonably judge of the public 
belief at this day, by the opinions in which some mod- 
ern writers have been pleased to indulge themselves. 
The testimony of those of antiquity who opposed the 
prejudices of their times, their very attempt to dissi- 
pate those fears, and to turn them into ridicule, rather 
proves how deeply they were rooted. Observe with 
what solicitude Lucretius every where endeavours to 
burst the bonds of religion, and to fortify his readers 
against the threatenings of eternal punishment* The 
observation of Juvenal, so often cited, that nobody in 
his day believed in the fables of hell, is that of an en- 
lightened mind, which takes no part in the opinions of 
the vulgar. The same thing is to Jbe said of what w'e 
read in Cicero, and in some other writers, on the same 
subject: and when Virgil exclaims, 'happy the man 
that can tread under foot inexorable Destiny, and the 
noise of devouring Acheron,' he indicates, in a man- 
ner sufficiently precise, that it was the province of 
philosophy alone to shake off the yoke of custom, riv- 
eted by education. 

" Those who were unable to conquer these vain ter- 
rors, found consolations of a different kind. Religion- 
stretched forth her kind hand to encourage their hopes, 
and to relieve their despondency. When remorse had 
brought back, within her pale, an unfortunate wan- 
derer from the paths of justice, she informed him that, 
by a true confession of his guilt, and sincere repent- 
ance, forgiveness was to be obtained. With this viev^ 
expiatory sacrifices were instituted, by means of which 
the guilty expected to participate in the happiness of 
the just." 

Such were the views of the ancient Greeks about 
Hades, or Tartarus, and its pu-nishment. There is 
8* 



90 AN INQUIRY INTO 

considerable similarity in the above quotation to some" 
descriptions given of hell torments by modern preach- 
ers. I shall leave all to their own reflection on it. 
One or two things I shall merely notice. 

1st, The doctrine of punishment in Tartarus, seems 
to have originated with legislators, for the purpose of 
restraining the passions of the multitude, and to alarm 
"them on all sides with the most frightful represen- 
tations." The Persians, Chaldeans, Egyptians and 
Greeks, all introduced punishment after death. The 
Jewish nation is an exception. Some deistical writ- 
ers have even blamed Moses as a legislator for not 
introducing eternal punishment into his code of laws, 
as a curb on men against licentiousness. It is gener- 
ally allowed that the punishments threatened in the 
Old Testament are of a temporal nature. 

2d, From the above quotation it appears, that though 
punishment after death in Tartarus was believed by 
the heathen generally, yet the better informed among, 
them did not believe "in the fables ofhelW^"^ but turned 
them into ridicule. Juvenal took no part in those 
opinions of the vulgar; and Virgil says — " it was the 
province of philosophy alone to shake off'the yoke of. 
custom, riveted hy education." Is it not then strange, 
that a doctrine, which w^as invented by heathens, and 
treated with contempt by their own wisest men, should 
be a fundamental article in the faith of Christians? 
How is this to be accounted for ? 

3d, I may just add, that when the heathen were 
made converts to the Christian faith, all allow, that 
many of their previous notions were soon incorpo- 
rated with it. This, together with the erroneous views 
held by the Jewish converts, laid a foundation for 
such a corruption of Christianity, which, if it w^ere 
not attested by evidence indisputable, could not be 
believed. That punishment in Hades, or Tartarus,, 
after death, is not a part of this corruption of Chris- 



THE WORD TARTARUS. 91 

/ 

tianity derived from the heathen, at least deserves to 
be seriously considered. The evidence we have ad- 
duced, proving that it is, we submit to the reader's 
, judgment. 

To conclude this chapter. We have shown, that 
neither Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, is ever used by 
the sacred writers to signify a place of endless mis- 
ery for the wicked. This was all we were bound to 
do, in opposing the common opinion on this subject. 
But we have also shown, that this opinion originated 
with the heathen ; and that the Jews learned it from 
them. To invalidate the evidence which has been 
produced, the very reverse must be proved. See note 
in the first edition, or the improved version on 2 Pe- 
ter and Jude. 



CHAPTER IL 



GEHENNA, UNIFORMLY TRANSLATED HELL, IN THE^ 
NEW TESTAMENT, CONSIDERED AS A PLACE OF 
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT. 



WE have now arrived at a part of this Inquiry, 
which requires the utmost attention. The New Tes- 
tament is considered as clearly and decidedly teach- 
ing the doctrine of endless misery to all the wicked, 
and Gehenna is the place in which they are said to 
suffer it. The truths or falsehood of this doctrine, is 
then at issue upon the decision of the question, — » 
What is the Scripture meaning and usage of the word Ge- 
henna ? 



SECTION I. 



REMARKS ON DR. CAMPBELl's VIEWS OF GEHENNA# 

WE have seen from a consideration of all the texts 
in which Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus occur, that these 
words never ought to have been translated /le//, at 
least in the sense in which it is used by most Chris- 
tians. This is confirmed by Dr. Campbell and other 
writers, who were all firm believers in the doctrine of 
eternal misery. Indeed, it is not now pretended by 
critics, that these words were ever intended to con- 
vey such an idea, by any of the sacred writers. 

The worJ, and I believe the o7ilyword^ which is sup- 
posed to express the place of eternal misery in the Bi- 
ble, is the term Gelieima. As Dr. Campbell conclu* 
sively proves, that Sheol, Hades and Tartarus do not 
mean this place, he as positively asserts, that this is 
always the sense of Gehenna in the New Testament. 
He thus writes concerning it in his 6th preliminary 
dissertation, part ii. sect. 1. — "That yciwoi^is employ- 
ed in the New Testament to denote the place of fu- 
ture punishment, prepared for the devil and his an- 
gels, is indisputable. In the Old Testament we do 
not find this place in the same manner mentioned* 
Accordingly the word j/ggvvc^ does not occur in the 
Septuagint. It is not a Greek word, and consequent- 
ly not to be found in the Grecian classics. It is orig- 
inally a compound of the two Hebrew words tD^n J^'-j 
ge hinnom^ the valley of Hinnom,a place near Jerusa- 
lem, of which we hear first in the book of Joshua, xv. 
8. It was there that the cruel. sacrifices of children 



94 AN INQUIRY INTO 

were made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2 
Chron. xxxiii. 6. The place was also called tophet^ 
*2 Kings xxiii. 10. and that, as is supposed, from the 
noise of drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised 
on purpose to drown the cries of the helpless infants. 
As this place was, in process of time, considered as 
an emble-m of hell, or the place of torment reserved 
for the punishment of the wicked in a future state, the 
name tophet came gradually to be used in this sense, 
and at length to be confined to it. — This is the sense,- 
if I mistake not, in which Gehenna^ a synonymous 
term, is always to be understood in the New Testa- 
ment, where it occurs just twelve times. In ten of 
these there can be no doubt; in the other two, the 
expression is figurative; but it scarcely will admit a 
question, that the figure is taken from th^t state of 
misery which awaits the impenitent." Such is the 
statement given by Dr. Campbell. It will be easily 
perceived, that the whole of it is, bare, unsupported 
assertion. He does not do here as we have seen him 
do with Sheol, and Hades,. prove what he says, by 
an appeal to the passages. No ; he leaves us to make 
out the proof the best way we can. At first I was in- 
clined to think, that, it was so plain and full, that he 
deemed it superfluous to adduce it. Resolved not to 
take this very important article on bare assertion, 
even from him, I have considered it as carefully as I 
could, and shall submit the result of my investigation 
for candid consideration. It is with diffidence and 
reluctance I dissent from such a learned and sensible 
writer as Dr. Campbell. But even he has taught 
me to call no man master. He encourages free in- 
quiry, and inculcates on his readers, that no doctrine 
ought to be believed because it is asserted by the 
learned, and professed by the multitude ; but on the 
argument and evidence whereby it is supported. As 
the foregoing quotation contains, for substance, the 



THE WOE,D GEHENNA. 95 

views of all who believe Gehenna to signify the place 
of eternal punishment, it is necessary to make some 
remarks on it in the outset. With all due respect for 
the memory of Dr. Campbell, I solicit attention to 
the following remarks on the above quotation. 

1st, Let it be then observed how very differently 
he speaks in the first and last part of it. In the first 
he says, — "that Gehenna is employed in the New 
Testament to denote the place of future punishment, 
prepared for the devil and his angels, is indispulable.'^^ 
But in the last, instead of speaking with such confi- 
dence, he only says, — ''this is the sense, if I mistake 
noU in which Gehenna, a synonymous term, is always 
to be understood in the New Testament." Whether 
-what he had written between the first and last of 
these sentences, led him to hesitate about the mean- 
ing of Gehenna, I cannot say; but sure I am, that he 
was too shrewd a man not to perceive, and too candid 
not to own, the insufficiency of the evidence adduced to 
convince his readers. It is not his usual mode merely 
to assert things. He generally states evidence, and sel- 
dom fails to convince us. But here he affords us none. 
It was in attempting to make out the proof of wh^t he 
asserts, for my own satisfaction, that I have been led 
to alter my opinion about the meaning of Gehenna. 

2d, Though Dr. Campbell asserts in the above quo- 
tation that this is always the sense of Gehenna in the 
New Testament, yet he denies that it has any support 
from the Old. He says,— 'Mn the Old Testament we 
do not find this place in the same manner mentioned. 
Accordingly the word Gehenna does not occur in the 
Septua2:int. It is not a Greek word, and consequent- 
ly not to be found in the Grecian classics." Here it 
is positively declared, that Gehenna is not to be found 
in the Old Testament, as meaning a place of endless 
punishment. Tome this is very strange; that the 
word Gehenna in the New Testament should indis- 



■'96 AN INQUIRY INTO 

putably mean such styplace of misery, that it should 
even be taken from the Old, and yet this never be its 
meaning there. Are zee tken to believe without evidence^ 
that this word is taken from the Old Testament^ and this 
new sense affixed to it by the Kew Testament writers^ yet 
no intimation given of such a change^ or in what zoay zve 
are to understand it under the gospel dispensaiion ? This 
we think ought to be indisputably proved^ before it be be- 
lieved by any man. We think it will be granted, that 
it is not the usual practice of the New Testament 
"writers to borrow^ words from the Old, and put such 
new senses upon them, without any intimation or ex- 
planation. But we may ask, if they have indeed done 
this, how could their hearers understand them ? Thej;^ 
were Je\vs, and to Jews they addressed themselves 
concerning Gehenna. Unless they explained the 
word in this new sense, it was impossible, in the very 
nature of the case, that their hearers could under- 
stand them. At any rate, it becomes those w^ho say 
they did use it in this new sense, to prove it, and show 
how thej^ could be understood without any explana- 
tion. It is true, that the authors of the Targums use 
the term Gehenna lo express a place of endless mis- 
ery; but it remains to be proved, that the New Tes- 
tament writers used it in this sense, and not in the 
sense it has in the Old Testament, Besides it ought 
to be shown how those uninspired authors came to 
use it so, on their own authority, and it ought to be 
proved that it was afterwards sanctioned by divine 
authority. 

3d, But Dr. Campbell attempts to account for such 
a change in the meaning of Gehenna in the New 
Testament, from that of the Old, in the following m.an- 
ner. " As this place v^^as, in process of time, consid- 
ered as an emblem of hell, or the place of torment 
reserved for the punishment of the wicked in a future 
-state, the name tophet came gradually to be used Ir 



THE WORD GEHENNA* 91 

this sense, and at length to be confined to it." I am 
surprised at this statement, and especially from such 
a writer as Dr. Campbell. Let it be noticed, that he 
does not so much as hint that the New Testament 
writers explained Gehenna to their hearers in this 
new sense. Nor does he say, that any sacred writer 
either of the Old or New Testament, made tophet an 
emblem of this place of torment. How then, I ask, 
could tophet become an emblem of hell, the place of 
torment, until this place w^as first known by the per- 
sons who made it an emblem ? We surely cannot make 
one place the emblem of another until that place is 
known, of which it is to be the emblem. But here is one 
place made the emblem of another, and yet it is con- 
fessed that no revelation was given about this place, 
of which the other place is made the emblem. Yea, 
it is even declared, that for this very place, the He- 
brew, Greek, nor English language has no name. Is 
it asked how I make this appear, I answer, let it be 
remembered, that Dr. Campbell has told us, that nei- 
ther Sheol, Hades, nor Tartarus, means this place of 
torment. In the very quotation on which we are re- 
marking, he declares that Gehenna does not occur in 
this sense in the Old Testament, that it is not a Greek 
word, and is not found in the Grecian classics, nor in 
the Septuagint. He has also told us, that our En- 
glish, or rather Saxon word hell, did not originally 
signify the place of eternal punishment for the wicked, 
but expressed the same place as Sheol and Hades. 
Here then we have got a place, a place even of eter- 
nal punishment for the wicked, but for which the Bi- 
ble, in the original languages, has no name ; a place, 
for which even the copious Grecian classics afford no 
name; a place, for which our Lord and his apostles 
could find no name, but were obliged to borrow a 
word from the Old Testament, affix this new sense to 
it, and did this without anv explanation, or even inti- 
9 



j98 an inquiry into 

mation, to their hearers. They did this too, in ad- 
dressing those who had the Old Testament in their 
hands; persons who were opposed to the doctrines 
they taught, and who were jealous of innovation* 
Moreover, the change of sense put on this word taken 
from their Scriptures, is for the purpose of threaten- 
ing tliem with torment in a future state. And to add 
no more, such persons receive all this without a mur- 
muring word at this alteration, or the dreadful pun- 
ishment with w^hich they are threatened. All this 
may possibly be true, but we must say, it is not very 
probable, nor ought it to be received until very con- 
alusive evidence is produced. But it may surely be 
asked, from what source did Dr. Campbell learn, 
" that tophet or Gehenna came gradually to be used as 
an emblem of hell, and at length came to be confined 
to it?" From what he has said, it is very evident that 
it was not from the Old Testament. If it was used as 
an emblem of hell, and confined to it in the days of 
our Lord, it must have assumed this new sense, be- 
tween the completion of the Old Testament writings, 
and the commencement of the gospel dispensation. 
If it began to assume this new sense before the Old 
Testament was completed, it had no authority from 
it; for Dr. Campbell himself declares, that Gehenna 
does not occur in this manner in the Old Testament. 
If this be true, and we think it indisputable, this new 
sense affixed to the word Gehenna, is not of divine, 
but of human origin : it rests on the authority of man, 
and not on the authority of God. I think this cannot 
be denied, unless it is proved that our Lord did use 
Gehenna to express the place of future torment for 
the wicked, and informed those to whom he spake, 
that this was the sense in which it was now to be 
understood. But is any thing like this to be found in 
all the New Testament, and is not this taking for 
granted the very thing which ought to be proved ? 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 95^ 

But further ; we think it must be allowed, that the 
way Dr. Campbell says Gehenna came to assume this 
new sense, is extremely suspicious. Had it been of 
divine authority, it would not have come gradually to 
assume it. No ; the sense would have been settled at 
once. But it seems from Dr. Campbell, that this new 
sense affixed to the word, was of slow process. It 
came, he says, "'gradually to be used as an emblem of 
hell, and at last to be confined to it^'^^ At what time it 
began to be used in this sense, who had the honour of 
first using it in this way, how long before it came to 
be confined to it, and who completed it, we are not 
informed. The thing is barely asserted by Dr. Camp- 
bell. If any evidence of this is to be found, we must 
find it, if we can ourselves. We have been at some 
pains to find evidence of this, but our labours have 
been entirely fruitless. We have, to be sure, found it 
usserted that the Targums and the Apocrypha use the 
term Gehenna for a place of endless misery. But we 
are left in the dark, as to when, or by whom, or on 
what authority such a meaning was first given to Ge- 
henna. If the writers of the Targums and the Apoc- 
rypha used Gehenna in this sense on their own au- 
thority, is this a sufficient foundation for our faith in 
such a doctriae? But it may be said, is it not evident 
that our Lord used Gehenna always^ and indisputably 
in this new sense ? It is certain, it is indisputable, 
that Dr. Campbell has asserted this, without so much 
as attempting to prove it. But surely this ought not 
to be received on the assertions of any man. Only 
let it be proved that our Lord used Gehenna in this 
new sense, and I am forever silent on the subject. 

But Dr. Campbell has said, that, " in the Old Tes- 
tament we do not find this place in the same manner 
mentioned." May I then be allowed to ask, if this 
place of torment for the wicked is not mentioned in 
this manner in the Old Testament, in what other man-- 



100 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ner do we find it mentioned ? If it is not mentioned 
under the name Gehenna, by what other name is it 
called? He denies that it is called by the names 
Sheol^ Hades ^ OY Tartarus. Yea, he denies that the 
Hebrew, Greek, or English language affords a name 
for this place of torment. In his Dissertation, already 
quoted, he thus writes in regard to the state of the 
dead. "It is plain that in the Old Testament the 
most profound silence is observed in regard to the 
state of the deceased, their joys or sorrows, happiness 
or misery. It is represented to us rather by negative 
qualities than by positive ; by its silence, its darkness, 
its being inaccessible, unless by preternatural means, 
It) the living, and their ignorance about it. Thus 
much in general seems always to have been presumed 
concerning it ; that it is not a state of activity adapt- 
ed for exertion, or indeed for the accomplishment of 
any important purpose, good or bad. In most re- 
spects, however, there was a resemblance in their no- 
tions on this subject, to those of the most ancient hea- 
then." It is obvious from this, that he did not be- 
lieve, that either the idea of a place of torment, or the 
name for it was known under the Old Testament. 
Besides, we have seen in a quotation of his, chap. i. 
sect. 3. that the Jews, from their intercourse with the 
heathen, learned the notion of punishment in a future 
state. He therefore not only denies that the Jews 
had any knowledge of this from the Old Testament,. 
but he informs us of the source whence they derived 
their information. Either he must be greatly mistak- 
en in his statements, or endless punishment in hell is 
a heathen notion, and ought to be rejected by all 
Christians. But I have to ask further, did our Lord 
speak to the Jews about Gehenna, in a sense it had 
not in all their sacred books, but in that given it by 
mere human authority ? Pid he indeed use a Scrip- 
ture word in a sense which man's wisdom teacheth, 



THE WORD GEHENNA. lOf 

laying aside the sense which the Holy Spirit teach- 
eth ? Are we to believe, that he who said to the Jews, 
"full well ye reject the commandment of the Lord, 
that ye may keep your own traditions," thus give them 
countenance by his. example? Admitting, for argu- 
ment's sake, that Gehenna was made an emblem of fu- 
ture torment, I ask, by what name was it called be- 
fore this new sense was affixed to the word Gehenna ? 
Dr. Campbell says, that Gehenna came gradually to 
mean the place of future punishment, and at last cgme 
to be confined to it. He also says, thiit in this man- 
ner it is not used in the Old Testament. Before this 
term was then used to express a place of endless mis- 
ery, was such a place known, and what word or 
phrase did men use to designate it ; or, was it a name- 
less place before Gehenna was used as an emblem of 
it ? If so, how could they speak about it ? But it seems 
men came gradually, in process of time, to use Ge- 
henna as an emblemof this place of torment, before 
they had any revelation or knowledge about such a 
place. We thought places and things were always 
first known, and then names for them followed; but 
here the matter seems to have been very different. In 
fact, there is something here which will not bear ex- 
amination. I ask again, why were not men content 
to speak of it by the name God had given it, if indeed 
he had said any thing about it? Or did men first in- 
vent this place of torment, and then change the 
, sense of the word Gehenna to suit it, or be an em- 
blem of it? Unless it is proved that our Lord did use 
Gehenna in this new sense, will it not follow that such 
a place of torment is not mentioned in the Bible by 
the name Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna ? If it 
is proved that he used Gehenna in this sense, does it 
not follow that he adopted an idea of men's own in- 
vention, and made it a doctrine to be believed under 
the gospel dispensation? It is certain, if Dr. Camp- 
er ^ 



102 AN INQUIRY IfTTO 

bell be correct, that he incorporated a heathen notion 
with his religion, and has made it a principal article 
of belief to all his followers. It may just be added, 
how could Dr. Campbell with truth say, that tophet 
came gradually to be used as an emblem of hell, the 
place of future torment, " and at length to be confined 
to it?'''' It might indeed be made an emblem of this 
by the Jews, but could not be confined to it ; for, in 
reading the Old Testament Scriptures, they could not 
but understand it in a very different manner. Let 
any one consult the places where it occurs, and see if 
it could be so understood by them. If they did, it 
was a great misunderstanding of the passages ; for 
Dr. Campbell himself declares, that in this sense it 
does not occur in the Old Testament. 

4th, Let it be noticed, that although Dr. Campbell 
declares in the above quotation, that Gehenna does 
not occur in the Old Testament in the sense of a place 
of torment for the wicked, yet he gives us the follow- 
ing information about it. — He says, — ''it is originally 
a compound of the two Hebrew words, tiD^n x^J ge hin- 
nom^ the valley of Hinnom, a place near Jerusalem, 
of which we hear first in the book of Joshua xv. 8. 
It was there that the cruel sacrifices of children were 
made by fire to Moloch, the Ammonitish idol, 2 Chron. 
xxiii. 10. and that, as is supposed, from the noise of 
drums, toph signifying a drum, a noise raised on pur- 
pose to drown the cries of the helpless infants.*' — 
Here, then, is the origin of Gehenna in the New Tes- 
tament, stated by Dr. Campbell himself. We see, 
though it does not occur in the sense of a place of 
torment for the wicked, yet it does occur in the Old 
Testament in some sense. What this sense is, and 
what it is there made an emblem of by divine author- 
ity, ought to be carefully considered, and not depart- 
ed fr9m, unless very substantial reasons are assigned, 
arising from its usage in the New Testament. We do 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 103 

not think it at all probable that our Lord would use 
Gehenna in such a different sense, or make it an em- 
blem of such a very different thing from that of the 
Old Testament writers, if Dr. Campbell himself may 
be believed in the following quotations. In his fifth 
Dissertation, part ii. sect. 13. he says, — ''Our Lord, 
we find from the evangelists, spoke to his countrymen 
in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and used those 
names to which the reading of the law and the proph- 
ets, either in the original, or in the versions then used, 
had familiarized them. Our translators, and indeed 
most European translators, represent him as using 
words, which, even in their own translations of the 
Old Testament, never occur, and to which, in fact, 
there is nothing there that corresponds in meaning." 
In his first preliminary Dissertation, part i. sect. !• 
and 2. he further says,-—'' if the words and phrases 
employed by the apostles and evangelists, in deliver- 
ing the revelation committed to them by the Holj^- 
Spirit, had not been agreeable to the received usage 
of the people to whom thej^ spoke, their discourses, 
being unintelligible, could have conveyed no informa- 
tion, and consequently would have been no revelation 
to the hearers. Our Lord and his apostles, in pub- 
lishing the gospel, first addressed themselves to their 
countrymen the Jews; a people who had, many ages 
before, at different periods, been favoured with other 
revelations. 

"As the writings of the Old Testament are of a 
much earlier date, and contain an account of the rise 
and first establishment, together with a portion of the 
history of the nation to whom the gospel was first 
promulgated, and of whom were all its first missiona- 
ries and teachers, it is thence unquestionably that we must 
learn^ both what the principal facts ^ customs^ doctrines^ 
and precepts are^ that are alluded to in the apostolical writ- 
ings^ and what is the proper signifxation and extent of 



104 AN INQUIRY INTO 

the expressions usecV^ No man could have written a re- 
fatation of what Dr. Campbell has said about Gehen- 
na, so complete, as what he has here furnished him- 
self. It needs no comment nor observation from me. 

What we have here to inquire into then, are prin- 
cipally the two following things : — In what sense is Ge- 
henna or tophet used in the Old Testament ; and what do 
the waiters make it an emblem of^ when they use it in this 
way 2 

1st, Then, let us inquire in what sense Gehenna or 
tophet is used in the Old Testament. Doubting the 
correctness of Dr. Campbell's statement, that Gehen- 
na did not occur in the Old Testament in the sense of 
a place of eternal punishment, we have examined all 
the places in which it occurs. The result of this ex- 
amination of the texts in the Old Testament, has giv- 
en us very different views of the places where it is 
used in the New. The substance of this examination. 
I shall now briefly state. 

Gehenna of the New Testament, is, according to Dr. - 
Campbell and others, *' a compound of the two He- 
brew words ajn K'J ge hinnom^ the valley of Hinnom, 
a place near Jerusalem.'' I find upon examination of 
all the passages, that this valley of Hinnom formed 
one of the boundaries in the division of the land among 
the tribes of Israel, Josh. xv. 8. and xviii. 16. This 
valley was in the immediate vicinity of Jerusalem, 
Jer. xix. 2. It was in this valley the cruel and abom- 
inable sacrifices of children were made by fire to Mo- 
loch, 2 Kings xxiii. 10. It was here Ahaz, Manasses, 
and others, made their children pass through the fire 
to this idol god, 2 Chron.xxviii. 3. and xxxvi. 6. Jer. 
xxxii. 35. and vii. 31, 32. In Isai. xxx. 31. tophet 
is not only mentioned, but allusion is made to the fire 
kept up there.* The Jews were expressly forbidden 

• This last text is often quoted to prove that tophet is a place of eter- 
nal misery for the wicked. But how it does so, it is difficult to per- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 105> 

to let their children pass through the fire to Moloch, 
Levit. xviii. 21. It was conimanded by God, that 
such as did so should be punished with death, Levit, 
XX. 1 — 6. Notwithstanding this, the law of the Lord 
was disregarded, and kings and subjects were guilty 
of such unnatural crimes. The following texts may 
also be consulted, which have some relation to such 
horrid abominations. Amos v. 26. comp. Acts vii* 
43. 1 Kings xi. 4 — ^8. Ezek. xvi. 20, 21, and xxiii. 
37—39. and xx. 26—31. 

1 have not quoted any of these texts at length, nor 
was this necessary, for the following things will not 
be disputed. It is evident that Gehenna, or the valley 
of Hinnom, was in the immediate vicinity of Jerusa- 
lem. It was in this valley the children of Israel sin- 
ned greatly in their cruel and abominable sacrifices 
offered to the idol god Moloch. A constant fire was 
kept up in this place, and it was a place of wretched- 
ness and abomination. Indeed, no place to a Jew, 
could convey such a lively view of misery and wretch- 
edness as the valley of Hinnom. 

2dj Let us now inquire what the Old Testament 
writers make Gehenna, or tophet, an emblem of. Dr. 
Campbell avers, that in process of tim.e, it was made 
an emblem of hell, or the place of torment reserved 
for the punishment of the wicked in a future state. 
He denies, however, as we have seen, that it is used 
in this manner in the Old Testament. The question 
then is, do the Old Testament writers use Gehenna or 
tophet as an emblem of any thing, and what is that 

ceive. If it does, it also proves, ihat "the pile thereof is fire and 
much wood " But is this true of liell, or the place of endless misery ? 
Parkhurst, on the word peteh^ gives us the tbllowing translation of 
this passage. ** For the furnace is already set in order .• for the king 
(of Assyria, namely) it is prepared,"" He Was hell or eternal misery 
Set in order and prepared for the king of Assyria ? This follows from 
what Mr. Parkhurst says, who was not a Universali^t. 



106 AN INQUIRY INTG^ 

things concerning which they use it as an emblem ? 
Permit me then to quote the two following passages, 
which show this clearly, and at great length. The 
first I quote is the whole of Jer. chap. xix. 1 also 
quote chap. vii. 29. to the end. 

" Thus saith the Lord, Go and get a potter's earth- 
en bottle, and take of the ancients of the people, and 
of the ancients of the priests; and go forth unto the 
valley of the son of Hinnom, which is by the entry 
of the east gate, and proclaim there the words that I 
shall tell thee ; and say, Hear ye the word of the Lord, 
O kings of Judah, and inhabitants of Jerusalem; 
thus saith the Lord of hosts ; the God of Israel; Be- 
hold, I will bring evil upon this place, the which, who- 
soever heareth, his ears shall tingle. Because they 
have forsaken me, and have estran'ged this place, and 
have burned incense in it unto other gods, whom nei^ 
ther they nor their fathers have known, nor the kings 
of Judah, and have filled this place with the blood of 
innocents; they have built also the high places of 
Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings 
unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it^ nei- 
ther came it into my mind : therefore, behold, the 
days come, saith the Lord, that this place shall no 
more be called tophet, nor the valley of the son of 
Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter. And I will make 
void the counsel of Judah and Jerusalem in this place ; 
and I will cause them to fall by the sword before their 
enemies, and by the hands of them that seek their 
lives ; and their carcases will I give to be meat for 
the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth. 
And I will make this city desolate, and an hissing; 
every one that passeth thereby shall be astonished, 
and hiss because of all the plagues thereof. And I 
will cause them to eat the flesh of their sons and the 
flesh of their daughters, and they shall eat every one 
the flesh of his friend in the siege and straitness. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 107 

wherewith their enemies, and they that seek their 
lives, shall straiten them. Then shalt thou break the 
bottle in the sight of the men that go with thee, and 
shalt say unto them, Thus saith the Lord of hosts ; 
Even so will I break this people and this city, as one 
breaketh a potter's vessel, that cannot be made whole 
again : and they shall bury them in tophet, till there be 
no place to bury. Thus will 1 do unto this place, saith 
the Lord, and to the inhabitants thereof, and even 
make this city as tophet : and the houses of Jerusa- 
lem, and the houses of the kings of Judah, shall be 
defiled as the place of tophet, because of all the hous- 
es upon whose roofs they have burned incense unto 
all the host of heaven, and have poured out drink of- 
ferings unto other gods. Then came Jeremiah from 
tophet, whither the Lord had sent him to prophesy ; 
and he stood in the court of the Lord's house; and 
said to all the people, thus saith the Lord of hosts, 
the God of Israel ; Behold, I will bring upon this city 
and upon all her towns all the evil that I have pro- 
nounced against it, because they have hardened their 
necks, that they might not hear my words. '^ Chap. 
vii. ver. 29—34. — ^^ Cut off thine hair, O Jerusalem^ 
and cast it away, and take up a lamentation on high 
places; for the Lord hath rejected and forsaken tbie 
generation of his wrath. For the children of Judah 
have done evil in my sight, saith the Lord: they 
have set their abominations in the house which is call- 
ed by my name, to pollute it. And they have built 
the high places of tophet, which is in the valley of 
the son of Hinnom, to bu^n their sons and their daug:h- 
ters in the fire ; which I commanded them not, neither 
came it into my heart. Therefore, behold, the daj s 
come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be called 
tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the 
valley of slaughter; for they shall bury in tophet till 
there be no place. And the carcases of this people 



108 AN INQUIRY INTO 

shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the 
beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away. 
Then will 1 cause to cease from the cities of Judah, 
and from the streets of Jerusalem, the voice of mirth, 
and the voice of gladness, the voice of the bridegroom, 
and the voice of the bride : for the land shall be des- 
olate." 

No one can doubt^ after reading these two quota- 
tions, that the Old Testament writers made the valley 
of Hinnom or to})het, an emblem of something. It is 
our duty candidly and carefully to consider what that 
thing is. I shall attempt briefly to do this. 1st, Then, 
it is evident that they made tophet an emblem of pun- 
ishment^ and of future punishment^ but, not of future 
eternal punishment in another state of existence. I'his 
all will admit without any hesitation, 2d, !t is equal- 
ly evident that they made it an emblem of fuiuretem- 
poral punishment to the Jews as a nation. Not a word is 
dropped, that this punishment was to be in a future 
state of existence, or of eternal duration. No ; it is 
a punishment of a temporal nature, in this world. It 
is a prediction of miseries to be endured by the Jews^ 
for their sins. It is not mentioned as a punishment 
for wicked men generally, or for Jews and Gentiles 
indiscriminately. No; the Jews, and they as a na- 
tion, were to suffer this punishment. In this predic- 
tion they are reminded of the crimes they had com- 
mitted against the Lord, in the valley of Hinnom, and 
it is used by the spirit of God, as an emblem of the 
punishment he was to inflict upon them. This is very 
apparent from the following verses in the above quot- 
ed passages, Jer. chap. vii. 20, 21. and xix. 4, 5. 
No man, we think, can read these predictions of the 
prophet, without recognising that our Lord, in thefol- 
low^ing texts, referred to the same punishment. ''That 
upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon 
the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto tl>e 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 109 

blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew 
between the temple and the altar. For then shall be 
great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning 
of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. And 
except these days should be shortened, there should 
no flesh be saved. For these be the days of ven- 
geance, that all things wbich are written may be ful- 
filled," Matth. xxiii. 35. and xxiv. 21, 22. Luke xxi. 
22. Yes, the days referred to, were indeed the days 
of vengeance, and the things which God had long 
predicted, were fulfilled, and the above quoted pre- 
dictions of Jeremiah, were surely of the numlDcr. 
But that we may see more particularly what Jeremi- 
ah made Gehenna or tophet an emblem of, it is nec- 
essary to point this out by going over the above pre- 
dictions. 

1st, Then, the prophet predicts, that the valley of 
Hinnom should be to the Jews the valley of slaugh- 
ter, and that they should bury in tophet till there 
should be no place to bury. The verses which pre- 
dict this, are Jer. vii. 32. and xix. 6, 11. That this 
referred to the time of the destruction of Jerusalem 
by the Roman armies, there can be no doubt. In proof 
of its exact fulfilment, I ciuote the following from 
M'Knight on Matth, chap. xxiv. He says: — '^be- 
sides, in the progress of the siege, the number of the 
dead, and the stench arising from their unburied car- 
cases, must have infected the air, and occasioned pes- 
tilence. For Josephus tells us that there were no less 
than six hundred thousand dead bodies carried out of 
the city, and sufiered to lie unburied.'^ It should be 
recollected, that we have seen that the valley cf Hin- 
nom was in the immediate^ vicinity of Jerusalem.— 
We see then this part of Jeremiah's prediction liter- 
ally and minutely fulfilled. 

2d, Jeremiah further predicts, " that their carcas- 
es also should be meat for the fowls of heaven and 
10 



110 AN INQUIRV into 

for the beasts of the earth." See chap. vii. 33. and 
xix. 7. If the fowls of the air, and beasts of the field 
did not feed on their carcases, it was not for want of 
opportunity, for we have seen that six hundred thous- 
and of their carcases lay unburied. This part of the 
prediction was also literally fulfilled. 

3d, Jeremiah also predicts, that "in the straitness 
of the siege, they should eat the flesh of their chil- 
dren." See Jer. xix. 9. This was also fulfilled in 
the siege of Jerusalem, as Josephus, their historian, 
testifies* 

4th, He further predicts, that "their land should 
be desolate," Jer. vii. 34. and xix. 8. This it soon 
became, after the destruction of the city and temple, 
and in this state in a great measure it remains until 
this day. 

5th, Again, the prophet predicts, "that their city 
should be as tophet," chap. xix. 12. We have seen^ 
that he said before, " the valley of Hinnom should be 
to them the valley of slaughter, and that they should 
bury in tophet till there should be no place to bury." 
It is evident, from these parts of the prophet's pre- 
diction, that the city of Jerusalem should be as tophet 
or like unto tophet. Tophet is used as an emblem to 
describe the misery in which it was to be involved by 
the judgments of God. And w^hy, it may be asked, 
was tophet made an emblem of those temporal mis- 
eries, rather than any thing else? To this 1 answer, 
that no temporal miseries since the world began, nor 
over shall be, could equal them in severity, and no 
place known to a Jew could be more filly chosen by 
the prophet as an emblem to represent them. I shall 
here quote the following account of the valley of Hin- 
nom, or tophet, in addition to what may be gathered 
from simply reading the above passages in the Old 
Testament. Calmet, on the word tophet, thus writes : 
-— " It is thought tophet was the butchery, or place of 



THE WORD GEHENNA. Ill 

slaughter at Jerusalem, lying south of the city, in the 
valley of the children of Hinnom. It is also said, 
that a constant fire was kept here, for burning the car- 
cases, and other filth, brought hither from the city. 
Into the same place they cast the ashes and remains 
of the images of false gods, when they demolished 
their altars, and statues. Isai, xxx. 33. seems to al- 
lude to this custom, of burning dead carcases in to- 
phet, when speaking of the defeat of the army of Sen- 
nacherib, he says; ' for tophet is ordained of old ; yea, 
for th€ king it is prepared ; he hath made it deep and 
large. The pile thereof is fire, and much wood ; the 
breath of the Lord, like a stream of brimstone doth 
kindle it.^ — Others think the name of tophet is given 
to the valley of Hinnom, because of the sacrifices of- 
fered there to the god Moloch, by beat of drum, to 
drown the cries of the consumingchildren."— The idol 
god Moloch was worshipped in the valley of Hinnom. 
On the word Moloch, Calmet says : — "The rabbins 
assure us, that the idol Moloch was of brass, sitting 
On a throne of the same metal, adorned with a royal 
crown, having the head of a calf, and his arms ex- 
tended as if to embrace any one. When they would 
offer any children to him, they heated the statue with- 
in by a great fire ; and when it was burning hot, they 
put the miserable victim within his arms, where it was 
soon consumed by the violence of the heat; and, that 
the cries of the children might not be heard, they 
made a great noise with drums, and other instruments, 
about the idol. Others say, that his arms were ex- 
tended, and reaching toward the ground ; so that when 
they put a child within his arms, it immediately fell 
into a great fire which was burning at the foot of the 
statue. Others relate that it was hollow, and had in- 
ternally seven partitions, the first of which was ap- 
pointed for meal or flour; in the second there were 
turtles, in the third an ewe, in the fourth a ram, in the 



112 AN INQUIRY INTO 

fifth a calf, in the sixth an ox, and in the seventh a 
child. All these were burned together, by heating the 
statue on the inside."' 

6th, The prophet adds, that " ail the evil which the 
Lord had spoken he would bring upon them,'' chap. 
xix. 15. The following words of the apostle, 1 Thess. 
ii. 16. sufficiently explains this, — ^'for the wrath is 
come, or coming upon them to the uttermost." And 
the words of our Lord, quoted above, — "for these be 
the days of vengeance, that all things that are writ- 
ten may be fulfilled." Lukexxi. 22. This part of the 
prediction compared with these passages, show that 
the prophet did refer to the dreadful punishment 
which God brought upon the Jewish nation at the end 
of the world, or age, and described, Matth. xxiv. For 
" all the evil which the Lord had spoken" he did not 
bring upon them until the destruction of their city and 
temple by the Roman array. 

Such are the principal things contained in this 
prophesy of Jeremiah. Whatever fulfilment these 
things had in the captivity, in the reign of Zedekiah, 
we think, the ultimate fulfilment of them took place 
in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus. It is then 
put beyond all fair debate, that Gehenna v^^as made 
an emblem of punishment to the Jews ; and nothing 
but ignorance of their own Scriptures could prev^ent 
their fully knowing this. It is made an emblem of tem- 
poral punishment^ and a very striking emblem indeed. 
But that it was made an emblem oi eternal punishment 
to the Jews^ or any of the human race^ does not appear 
from this prophesy of Jeremiah, or any other part of 
the Bible. We hope these things will be kept in view, 
as they have a very important bearing on w^hat is to 
follow, in considering the passages about Gehenna in 
the New^ Testament. Gehenna, the valley of Hin- 
nom, or tophet, is made by Jeremiah an emblem of 
the temporal calamities coming on the Jewish nation* 



THE WORD GEHENNA, 113 

That in this very way it is also used by our Lord in 
the New Testament, we aiiall show when we come to 
consider the passages in which this word occurs. Dr. 
Campbell, is so far correct then, in saying that Ge- 
henna was made an emblem of punishment^ but is cer- 
tainly mistaken in saying that it was made an emblem 
of future eternal punishment for the devil and his angels^ 
or any other beings in the universe. Supposing Ge- 
henna to have been made an emblem of the place of 
eternal torment to the wicked, it is certain, it was not 
done by the Old Testament writers. Even Dr. 
Campbell himself assures us, that in this manner it 
does not occur in the Old Testament. That he is cor- 
rect in this, has been shown from the places in which 
it occurs. Is it not then deserving particular notice, 
that the Old Testament writers should use the term 
Gehenna as an emblem of temporal and not of eternal 
punishment? and yet we are told, that in process of 
time it came to be used as an emblem of eternal pun- 
ishment. Only let this change in the sense of Gehen- 
na be established, on Scripture authority, and I am 
perfectly satisfied. Until this is done, to appeal to 
the Targuras and the Apocrypha, is only in another 
way, telling us, that the Bible does not authorize it^ 
See sect. iii. 

10* 



SECTION ir. 



A NUMBER OF FACTS STATED, SHOWING THAT GEHENNA WAS 
NOT USED BY THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS TO EXPRESS 
A PLACE OF ENDLESS MISERY. 

Before we proceed to consider the texts in whicli 
Gehenna occurs in the New Testament, some facts, of 
essential importance, ought to be noticed. These facts 
have been altogether overlooked, or but little attend- 
ed to, on this subject. 

1st, Then, let it be kept in remembrance, that nei- 
ther Gehenna^ nor any other word^ is used in the Old Tes- 
tament to express a place of endless misery for thezvicked^ 
This we presume will be admitted, as established from 
the preceding part of our examination. It is evident 
from chap. i. that Sheol, Hades, and Tartarus, have 
no such meaning. Yea, it is contended by the authors 
quoted there, that Gehenna in the New Testament, 
is the word which is used to express the place of end- 
less misery. They contend for no other, and 1 never 
heard that any other words were ever alleged as ex- 
pressing this place, by the inspired writers. The 
phrases, bottomless pit^ and lake of fire and brimstone^ it 
is true, have been thought to mean the same as Ge- 
henna. We believe, however, that Gehenna is con- 
sidered indisputable^ and that in this sense it is uni- 
formly used in the New Testament. If it fails, and 
refuge is taken in these two phrases, or any other, it 
will be then time enough to consider them. Is it not 



ATSr INQUIRY INTO THE WORD GEHENNA. 1 1 5 

then a curious fact ^ that Gehenna of the Mew. Testament^ 
should he taken from the Old^ where this is allowed never 
to he its meanings and for this change of meaning we should 
be referred to the authors of the Targums* and the Apoc- 
rypha? This fact ought to lead us to examine care- 
fully if this indeed be the sense in which Gehenna is 
used in the New Testament. We ought not to take it 
for granted ; but be sure that we correctly understand 
the passages which speak of Gehenna. This fact leads 
to a suspicion, that we may have mistaken their mean- 
ing. But has it not been common to believe Gehen- 
na a place of endless misery, and that without any 
examination ? 

2d, The word Gehenna occurs just twelve times in the- 
New Testament^ and is ahcays translated hell in our 
English version. The following are all the places where 
this word is found* Matth. v. 22, 29, 30. and xviii. 
9. Mark ix. 43—47. Luke xii. 5. Matth. x. 28. and 
xxiii. 15, 33. James iii. 6. 1 only refer to these texts 
now, because they shall all be particularly consider- 
ed afterwards. The fact, that this word is only found 
twelve times in the New Testament, I notice for the 
following reasons. — It is contended by Dr. Campbell^, 
and I believe is universally admitted, that Gehenna is 
the only word w^hich signifies the place of endless pun- 
ishment for the wicked. But do most Christians know, 
that th^ word hell, so much talked of, and preached 
about, is only found twelve times in the Scriptures ? 
But a little reflection may convince any one, that, prop- 
erly speaking, it was not used originally so often as 
twelve times. It occurs eleven times in the gospels 
written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and by com- 
paring the places, it is easily seen^ that these histori- 
ans only relate some of the same discourses, in which 
our Lord used this w^ord. Though it occurs then elev- 
en times, it is plain it was not so often used by him 
when he uttered his discourses. Viewing the matter 



116 AN INQUIRY INTO 

in this light, and surely it is the true one, few words 
of such importance occur so seldom in the New Tes- 
tament, as the word Gehenna. I do not view this fact 
of any great importance, further than to show the dif- 
ference between the inspired writers and modern 
preachers, as to their frequent use of this word 5 and 
to confine them, if possible, in preaching about hell^ 
to those texts, and those only, in which Gehenna oc- 
curs. Whether they ought to quote the texts where 
Gehenna is used, or not, is the subject of our present 
investigation. — Admitting that it occurs twelve times, 
and in all these it is certainly used to express a place 
of eternal misery, it deserves notice, that this is not 
so often in the whole Bible, as it is used- by many 
preachers in the course of a single sermon. — But I 
have noticed this fact, with a view also to undeceive 
the minds of some, who, seeing the word hell so often 
in their Bibles, conclude that the Holy Spirit has said 
a great deal on this subject. The fact is indisputable, 
that it is only used twelve times in the New Testa- 
ment, and every other text in which the word hell oc- 
curs, quoted to prove the doctrine of eternal misery, 
is worse than no proof; it 13^ misquoting the Scriptures. 
I frankly admit, that, if 4n the texts in which Gehen- 
na occurs, it can be fairly made to appear that the 
sacred writers use this word as expressive of a place 
of eternal punishment, it is a truth we ought to re-, 
ceive without gainsaying. Common Scripture usage 
of any word is an allowed just rule of interpretation. 
But it ought also to be admitted, that if this word is 
used in the above texts to express temporal punish- 
ment, or in a similar way as by the prophet Jeremiah, 
Gehenna must be given up, as meaning a place of end- 
less punishment for the wicked. 

3d, Another fact is^ that the word Gehenna or hell, is 
used by our Lord, and by James, but by no other person in 
the New Testament. This fact, every person who caii 



Ttm WOiRD GEHENNA* 117 

read English, may satisfy himself about, by reading 
all the texts referred to above, where the word Ge- 
henna is found. Is it not, then, somewhat surprising^ 
that it should only be used twelve times in the New 
Testament, and still more surprising, that our Lord 
and James should be the only persons who say any 
thing about it? It is surely a very natural expecta- 
tion, warranted by thefrequency of similar important 
subjects, that hell should be often spoken of, and that 
all the New Testament writers should say less or 
more about it. The conduct of preachers in our day, 
would lead us certainly to conclude, that the inspired 
writers would all reiterate this subject in the ears of 
their hearers. But no such thing is to be found. Most 
of them do not appear to have used the word Gehen- 
na or hell in all their lifetime. John, though he 
wrote the history of our Lord, as well as Matthew,. 
Mark and Luke, does not once name Gehenna, either 
in his gospel, or any of his epistles. What is still 
more remarkable, Luke, though he mentions Gehen- 
na in his gospel, names it not in his history of the acts 
of the apostles. Paul, Peter and Jude, are as silent 
about Gehenna, as if such a place had no existence* 
No person in the New Testament, our Lord excepted, 
ever threatened men with the punishment of Gehen- 
na, or hell, which is very strange, if by it eternal mis- 
ery be intended. To say they ever did this, yet not 
be able to produce a single text in proof, is only beg- 
ging the question, and will never satisfy the mind of 
a candid inquirer after truth. Now, let it be remem- 
bered, that the writings of those persons who have 
never mentioned Gehenna or hell, form two thirds of 
the New Testament. We think we may appeal to 
every candid man, if this fact ought not to strengthen 
the suspicion, that we may have misunderstood the 
passages in the New Testament which speak about 
Gehenna. 



118 AN INQUIRY INTO 

I am fully aware that it may be objected to allthis^ 
though these writers da not mention Gehenna, yet 
they have spoken of the same punishment in another 
way. If they have, we are willing to consider what 
they have said, and, we think, have considered it. All 
we wish observed here, is, that they have surely not 
spoken of it by the name Gehenna or hell. This can- 
not be disputed. Since this is a fact, an argument of 
s.ome weight arises tfrom it, that Gehenna was not used 
to express a place of endless misery. It is this. If 
our Lord taught this doctrine at all, it will be allowed 
that he taught it in those passages, in which he speaks 
of Gehenna or hell fire. Well, if the disciples did 
understand our Lord as teaching this doctrine in sucb 
passages, how came it to pass, that they never once 
afterwards spoke of it by this name as their master 
had taught them ? Is it likely that they would lay 
aside his mode of speaking about it, and adopt a mode 
of their own? 

4th, Another fact deserving our attention^ is^ that all 
that is said about Gehenna,^ was spoken to Jews. Jews^ 
and they only^ were the persons addressed^ when speaking 
of Gehenna. It is not once named to the Gentiles in all 
the New Testament^ nor are any of them ever threatened 
with such a punishment* This fact is indisputable. The 
evidence of its truth does not depend on a tedious, 
intricate process of reasoning, which few persons 
could go through and decide about. All that any one 
has to do, is to read all the texts referred to, in which 
Gehenna occurs, in connexion with their contexts, and 
he must be satisfied of the correctness of my state- 
ment. It is not of the least consequence to decide to 
whom the gospels were originally written. * In all the 
eleven places in^which Gehenna is used by our Lord, 
it is easily perceived that he was addressing Jews. 
In the only other passage in which it occurs, it is evi- 
dent that James was addressing the twelve tribes 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 1 1 9 

'which were scattered abroad. See chap. i. and com- 
pare it with chap. iii. 6. Should it be objected t© 
this, " that our Lord's ministry was among the Jews, 
and that he did not minister among the Gentiles, and 
therefore could not speak to them of the damnation of 
hell;" to this I answer, that the objection would have 
force, if his apostles, in their ministrations to the Gen- 
tiles, had spoken of the damnation of hell. But this 
they never did, and their silence not only renders the 
objection of no weight, but shows that the damnation 
of hell peculiarly concerned the Jews, and that the 
apostles considered the Gentiles not concerned in this 
punishment. This fact, which I deem of great im- 
portance in this inquiry, is put beyond all fair debate. 
No man can doubt the fact, who takes the trouble to 
read the above passages. Its truth will appear when 
we come to consider them. Let us then attach vjhat 
meaning we please to the word Gehenna ; it is certain that 
the Jews are the only persons addressed about it. 

It has been thought by some, that Matthew, Mark 
and Luke, wrote their gospels for the use of the 
Jews. In whatever way this may be decided, it 
seems certain that John wrote his gospel for the use 
of the Gentiles. Of this the book contains sufficient 
internal evidence. John explains Jewish places, 
names and customs, which was aUogether unnecessa- 
ry, had he been writing to Jews. Is it not then very 
worthy of our notice, that in his gospel he never 
mentions Gehenna ? If the punishment of Gehenna 
or hell, was for Gentiles as well as Jews, how came it 
to pass, that he said nothing to them about it ? Not 
only does he never name Gehenna, but he omits all 
the discourses in which our Lord used this word. If 
the damnation of hell only concerned Jev/s, we see a 
very good reason for this omission ; but if it equally 
concerned Gentiles, how is it to be accounted for up- 
on rational principles ? If both were alike concern- 



1 20 AN INQUIRY mxO 

ed in its punishment, why are not both throughout 
the New Testament admonished about it, and warn- 
ed against it? How could the Gentiles fear and 
avoid a punishment not once mentioned to them by 
any one of the inspired writers? The only way in 
which these omissions can be accounted for, is, that 
they attached a very different idea to the punish- 
ment of hell from what we do, and did not consider 
the Gentiles concerned with it. 

It may possibly be objected, — ^' were not all the 
Scriptures written for the benefit of mankind ? Why 
then make such a distinction between what was ad- 
dressed to the Jews and not to the Gentiles?" In re- 
ply to this objection, I frankly answer, — yes; what- 
soever was written aforetime, was written for our 
learning. But notwithstanding this, who does not 
see, and does not admit, in other cases, the import- 
ance, yea, the necessity of this very distinction ? We 
may derive as Gentiles, much instruction from Matth. 
xxiii. xxiv. ; but who will deny that what is there 
written had a particular reference to the Jews? This 
is but one example out of many which might be ad- 
duced in illustration of this distinction. It should be 
recollected, that in the very first of these chapters 
referred to, some of the most important things said 
by our Lord of Gehenna occur. All will allow, that 
the words, — '' fill ye up then the measure of your 
fathers," had a special reference to the Jews. If so, 
why not also the very next vv^ords, " ye serpents, ye 
generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damna- 
tion of hell?" This is the only instance which can 
be produced, where our Lord ever threatened the 
unbelieving Jews with the damnation of hell ; and 
the whole context goes to show, that the subject he 
was speaking on, had an especial reference to the 
Jews. Our Lord, nor any of his apostles after him, 
ever threatened the Gentiles with a punishment in 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 121 

Gehenna. This fact not only confirms the suspicion, 
which the preceding facts were calculated to excite, 
but I think ought to lead every nian strongly to 
doubt if by Gehenna our Lord meant a place of eter- 
nal misery for all the finally impenitent. The man 
who can avoid doubting this, must have some way 
whereby he accounts for these facts, of which I frank- 
ly confess my ignorance. 

54;h, Another very important fact to be noticed^ is^ that 
the chief part of all that our Lord said about Gehenna^ 
was spoken to his disciples. Out of twelve times in which 
Gehenna or hell is mentioned in the New Testament^ in 
only two instances is a word said about it to the unheliev- 
ing part of the Jewish nation, in nine of those places 
our Lord was evidently addressing his disciples, and 
in the other place where Gehenna is mentioned, 
James was addressing believing Jews of the twelve 
tribes, who were scattered abroad. This fact is also 
so notorious, that the texts where the word Gehenna 
occurs, need only to be consulted, to be perfectly 
satisfied of its truth. It is not more certain that this 
word occurs just twelve times in the New Testament, 
than it is certainly used ten times in speaking to the 
disciples, and only tvvice to the unbelieving Jews. — 
May I not then be permitted to press home the ques- 
tion, — how is it to be rationally and scripturally ac- 
counted for, that so much should have been said 
about Gehenna or hell to the disciples, and compara- 
tively so little to the unbelieving part of the Jewish 
nation? If Gehenna did .mean, as is commonly be- 
lieved, a place of future eternal misery, why did our 
Lord appear so solicitous that his few disciples should 
escape this punishment, yet say so very little about 
it to the unbelieving multitude? To his disciples he 
always spoke of it as a thing they might escape; but 
to the unbelieving Jews, he says, ''how can ye es- 
cape the damnation of hell ?" Prav, why did he 
It 



122 AJr INQUmt INTO 

warn so much those in least clanger of this punish- 
ment^ yet say so little to those in the greatest dan- 
ger of it ? If he attached the same ideas to the word 
Gehenna, which we do to the word hell, how can we 
account for this part of our Lord's conduct? It is 
self evident, and must strike every reflecting man 
with great force, that his conduct, and the conduct of 
preachers in our day, are at perfect variance. For 
example, what would people in our day think of a 
preacher who should preach most about hell to the 
church, and say but little about it to the unbelieving 
part of his audience ? appearing much more solicit- 
ous that the few composing the church should be 
saved from its punishment, than the multitude he con- 
sidered as living in disobedience and wickedness.. 
All know that the very reverse of this is the uniform 
practice of modern preachers. How this diflerence 
between our Lord's practice and theirs, is to be ac- 
counted for, I leave others to determine. On the 
commonly received views of Gehenna or hell, 1 am 
satisfied it can never be rationally accounted for. — 
I may add, how is it to be rationally accounted for^ 
that our Lord 6nly once during his whole ministry, 
should say to the unbelieving Jews, " how can ye es- 
cape the damnation of hell," if by this he meant fu- 
ture eternal punishment ? That this could not be his 
meaning, we shall presently show from a variety of 
evidence. We only request that his conduct as it re- 
spects this, should be rationally accounted for. Ei- 
ther he said a great deal too little about hell to the 
wicked, or most preachers in our day say a great deal 
too much. Which of these two they will admit as the 
truth, must be left for themselves to determine. I need 
hardly notice that this fact is calculated to increase 
the doubts created by the other facts already stated, 
and ought to lead every man to a candid and careful 
examination of the New Testament, as to the sense of 



THE WORD GEHENNA* 1 23 

Gehenna there. When we sit down to examuie thia 
subject, these facts ought to be kept in view. Besides, 
we ought to remember, that Gehenna in the Old Tes- 
tament, is used, not for a place of endless misery, but 
as an emblerft of temporal punishment to the Jewish 
nation. It is hoped the reader will keep these things 
constantly in his mind, in reading the next section, 
where all the passages which speak of Gehenna are 
considered. 

6th, But another fact^ which deserves some notice^ is^ 
that in all the places where Gehenna or hell is mentioned^ 
the persons addressed^ are supposed to be acquainted with 
its meaning* JVo explanation is asked^ and none is given^ 
nor is it thought^ either by speaker or hearers to be necessa- 
ry* The Jews, who are always the persons address- 
ed, appear to have understood what our Lord meant 
by the punishment or damnation of Gehenna, as well 
as what was meant by stoning to death. The very 
first time it is mentioned, Matth. v. 22. the disciples 
had no more occasion to ask our Lord what he meant 
by Gehenna, than what he meant by the judgment 
and council. If this be true, and we think it will not 
be disputed, a very important question arises, — how 
came they to understand that Gehenna meant a place 
of eternal punishment for all the wicked? From what 
source did they derive their information concerning 
this ? I cannot conceive any sources from whence they 
could possibly derive this information, unless from one 
or other of the following: 1st, From immediate inspi-- 
ration. No evidence that this was the case can be 
produced, nor is it likely to be asserted by any per- 
son who has considered this subject. 2d, T\\q preach- 
ing of John the Baptists But as John never said a word 
about Gehenna to his hearers, this cannot be contend- 
ed for by any one. 3d, Did they then derive their 
information from the instructions and explanations of the 
Smiour? Neither can this be contended for by any on?. 



124 AN INQUIRY INTO 

who has read the four gospels. Our Lord never gave 
any such explanation of Gehenna. No man will say 
he ever did. 4th, Did they derive their information 
from the Old Testctmcnt Scriptures which they had in 
their hands ? I'his they could not do, for we have 
seen above, that it did not contain such informa- 
tion. They could not learn a doctrine from it, which 
Dr. Campbell and others declare it did not teach. 
We have seen what the Old Testament teaches about 
Gehenna, but not a word does it say that it means a 
place of future eternal misery for the wicked. 5thy 
The only other source from whence they could learn, 
that Gehenna meant a place of endless punishment 
for the wicked, was, the writings of fallible^ uninspired- 
men. Accordingly, no other alternative was left Dr. 
Campbell but to say, that "Gehenna rn process of 
time, came to be used in this sense, and at lengtb 
came to be confined to it." Here, then, is the way 
in which it is said Gehenna came to have the sense 
which is now commonly given it in the New Testa- 
ment. No man, we presume, can devise a better. 

We have seen, in a quotation from Dr. Campbell, 
chap. i. sect. 3. that the Jews learned from the hea* 
then the notion of punishment in a future state. We 
shall show, sect. v. how thej^ came to apply the name 
Gehenna to this place of punishment. We shall also 
see that the Jews did not believe that any of their 
nation, however wicked, would suffer the punishment 
of hell. How is it possible, then, from the nature of 
the case, that the Jews, by the damnation ofhell^ could 
understand our Lord to mean a place of eternal pun- 
ishment? Had they understood him so, would they 
not have shown their displeasure against him ? Can 
any man suppose that they heard such a threatening' 
and were silent? Had he so threatened the Gentiles 
they would have been pleased, for the Jews consider- 
ed them fit fuel for hell fire. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 125 

That a punishment was threatened the Jews under 
the emblem of Gehenna, in their own Scriptures, we 
have seen from the last section. Of this they could 
not be ignorant. In the next section we shall show 
that to this punishment our Lord referred by the 
damnation of hell, and we think in this sense the Jews 
understood him. There is no evidence that the un- 
believing Jews understood our Lord by Gehenna to 
mean one thing, and the disciples another. No : our 
Lord seems to use Gehenna, in speaking to both, in 
the same sense, and both appear to have understood 
his meaning. Neither of them ever asked him what 
he meant by the damnation of helL There appears to 
have been no need for this, for both derived their in- 
formation from the Old Testament Scriptures. If 
this was the common source of their information con- 
cerning the punishment of Gehenna, they never could 
understand our Lord by it to mean a place of eternal 
misery, for it contained no such information. Those 
who assert that they did understand our Lord so, are 
bound to inform us where they got this knowledge, 
seeing it was not derived from this source. They must 
also rationally and scripturally account for the above 
facts, before such a view of the punishment of hell 
can be established. We have no hope of ever seeing 
this accomplished — We have a number of additional 
facts, to prove that Gehenna is not used to express a 
place of endless punishment; but these will be more 
appropriately introduced, after we have considered 
all the passages of the New Testament where this word 
occurs. These we shall now attempt candidly to con-- 
*ider. 



11* 



SECTION III. 



ALL THE PASSAGES IN WHICH GEHENNA OCCURS,. CON- 
SIDERED. 

Notwithstanding the facts which have been sta'ted,. 
and the observations made, in proof that Gehenna m 
the New Testament does not signify a place of endless- 
misery, yet this must be determined by a considera- 
tion of all the places where it occurs. The texts, 
with their respective contexts, must decide in what 
sense the writers used the term Gehenna. — It is not 
material in what order we bring forward the passages. 
But as all the things said about it, were either address- 
ed to the unbelieving Jews ^ or to the disciples^ I shall 
begin with the text& in which the former v; ere ad- 
dressed. 

The first then is Matth. xxiii. 15. — "Wo unto you,. 
Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites ; for ye compass 
sea and land to make one proselyte ;: and when he isr 
made, ye make him two-fold more the child of hell, 
(Gehenna) than yourselves." This is one of the 
places in which Dr. Campbell thinks that the term 
Gehenna is used figuratively. It is observed by Park- 
hurst, on the word TIOS, that "son of Gehenna, or 
bell, is one deserving of, or liable to, hell." He con- 
siders the expression an Hebraism. It is evident, 
from the context, that the words were spoken to the 
unbelieving Jews. They plainly imply, that our 
Lord considered them children of hell. This, accord- 
ing to Parkhurst, means, "deserving of, or liable to, 
jicll."— Their making their proselyte two-fold more 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE WORD GEttENNA. ' 1 27- 

the child of hell than themselves, must therefore mean* 
that they made him two-fold more deserving of, or 
liable to hell, than themselves. It is easily seen here, 
that the whole depends upon what sense we affix to 
the word Tie//, or Gehenna* If we say that it means a 
place of eternal misery, the sense evidently is, that 
the Pharisees made their proselyte two-fold more de- 
serving of, or liable to^ eternal misery, than them- 
selves.. But how is this sense of the word Gehenna 
to be proved ? This ought not to be taken for granted 
as its sense. This would be assuming as true ihe 
very ques-lion under discussion. As there is nothing 
in the verse itself which decides this, we must have 
recourse to other places, in which the sense of Ge- 
henna is decided from the text and context, consider- 
ed in connexion with the other circumstances mention- 
ed. This we shall find in the next passage, which, 
occurs in the same chapter. 

In verse 33. it is said, addressing the same persons^ 
a;s in the preceding text, ''ye serpents, ye generation 
of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" 
As much dependance is placed on this passage to 
prove eternal punishment in hell, I shall give it a par- 
ticular consideration. Indeed, if this passage does 
not teach this, doctrine, how can it be proved from 
any other? For this is the only passage of the New 
Testament, in which wicked men are threatened with 
the damnation of hell. If this text fails to support the 
doctrine, it must be proved from some other texts than 
those in which Gehenna or hell is used. Let it Ite then 
remarked, that the word damnation which occurs in this 
passage, simply means judgment^ or punishment. Dr. 
Campbell and others translate the word punishment. 
See his note on Matth. xii. 40. If it were necessary, 
it could be easily shown that the sanie original word is 
rendered punishment in some other places of our com- 
mon version. The sense then is, ''how can ye escape 



128 AN INaUIRY INTO 

the punishment of hell or Gehenna?" The word damr 
nation determines nothing about the place^ the nature^ or 
the duration of the punishment* It expresses punish- 
ment to the persons addressed ; but all these things 
must be determined from some other sources of evi- 
dence, than the word damnation. As in the preced- 
ing passage, the whole depends here on the sense we 
affix to the word Gehenna or hell. If we say that it 
means the place of eternal misery for the wicked, our 
Lord's meaning evidently is, " how can ye escape 
the punishment of eternal misery ?'' But here again 
observe, that this sense of the word must not be taken 
for granted. How are we then to decide in w^hat 
sense our Lord used the term Gehenna in this pas- 
sage? There are two waj^s at least in which we may 
form a decision respecting this ; namely, an examina- 
tion of the context in which this passage stands^ and Scrip- 
ture usage of the word Gehenna* No person can object 
to these rules of interpretation. On the contrary, 
they are such as every man of any intelligence highly 
approves. 

1st, Then, let us examine the context in which these 
words stand.. It is evident from verse 1. of the chap- 
ter, that what is contained in it, w^as addressed to the 
multitude^ and to the disciples^^ From verse 2, to 13.^ 
our Lord spoke to his disciples concerning the Scribes, 
and Pharisees, and warned them against several evils 
in those men. But notice, that at verse 13. he. begins 
a direct address to the Scribes and Pharisees^ which he 
continues to the end of the chapter. That some of 
those men were present, seems evident, for the dis- 
course has ewQYj appearance of a very pointed ad- 
dress to them. All must have noticed how often our 
Lord says to them, " wo !" or "alas ! unto you Scribes 
and Pharisees, hypocrites." No man, who reads from 
Terse 13, to 32. can help seeing in what a plain, for- 
cible, and pointed manner, our Lord exposed their 



5l'. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 121?' 

wmkedness and hypocrisy. He says to ihem in 
verse 32. ^^fiU ye up then the measure of your fa« 
Ihers." Then immediately follow the words undeix 
consideration : "ye serpents, ye generation of vipers^., 
how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"— Two 
questions here present themselves for consideration — 
How were these men to fill up the measure of their fathers 
And what damnation of hell was it which they could not 
escape ? 

1st, How were these men to fill up the measure of 
their fathers ? If we consult the context for an answer 
to this question, we find the following very plainly 
given us in verse 34. — '^ Wherefore, behold, 1 send 
unto you prophets, and wise men and Scribes ; and 
some of them ye shall kill and crucifj^, and some of 
them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and per- 
secute them from city to city." That this is a just 
answer to the question, I presume will not be disputed. 
Their fathers, our Lord told them, in verses 30, and 
31 ► had killed the prophets, and thej^ gave but too 
good evidence that they were the children of such 
fathers. The measure of their fathers they were to 
fill up, by their crucifying him, and persecuting those 
whom he was to send them, as described, verse 34. 
Compare also John xvi. 1 — 3. and 1 Thess. ii. 16. 

2d, What damnation of hell was it which those men 
could not escape? Let us again consult the context 
for an answer to this question. If verse 34. answered 
the first question, verse 35. must answer the second. 
/'That upon you may come all the righteous blood 
shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous 
Abel, unto the blood of Zacharias, son of Barachias, 
whom ye slew between the temple and the altar." 
That this is the true answ^er to the second qtiestion, is 
not easily denied. Those w ho believe the expression 
" damnation of hell," means eternal misery, will read- 
ily admit, that my interpretation of the words, ''fill 



130 AJJ INQ,UIRY INTO 

ye up then the measure of your fathers," is <:orrect* 
This cannot well be disputed ; for the context clearly 
decides this to be our Lord's meaning. Suffer me then 
to ask, why my interpretation of the words, "damna- 
tion of hell," should not also be correct? Surely the 
context as clearly points out the latter interpretation 
to be our Lord's meaning, as it does the former. If 
the context decides the sense in the one case, it must 
decide in both. Besides, is it not a strong confirma- 
tion that my interpretation is correct, that this ex- 
pression, '• the damnation of hell," occurs in this dis- 
course about the destruction of Jerusalem, and in no 
other discourse our Lord ever delivered. Had he used 
this expression when preaching the gospel, and en- 
forcing the necessity of repentance on the Jews,„ it 
might be supposed that he referred to eternal punish^ 
inent.^ Byt as it occui^s in this discourse, Sind is never 
used by him on any other occasion, it seems to put it 
beyond all doubt that I have justly interpreted the 
words damnation of hell. No man doubts, that what is 
said verse 35. refers to the punishment inflicted on 
the Jews at the destruction of their city and temple, 
and more fully described in chap. xxiv. The suc- 
ceeding verses of the chapter in which the words 
stand, confirm the view I have given. At verse 36. 
our Lord says, "^ verily I say unto you, all these 
things shall come upon this generation," and surely 
the damnation of hell was a part of them. See also 
the three remaining verses, which I need not tran- 
scribe. 

It is now seen that the context of this passage leads 
us, not to interpret the words "damnation of hell," 
of punishment in a future state, but of the temporal 
calamities coming on the Jewish nation, during that 
generation. If ever the context of any passage de- 
cided in what sense the writer used a word or phrase, 
it is certainly decided in the Qne before us. But t 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 131 

ought to be allowed the liberty, with those who maj 
Oppose my view of this passage, to call upon them to 
avail themselves of the context as 1 have done, and 
show, if they can, from it, that by the damnation of 
hell, our Lord meant a place of eternal misery. Let 
only the attempt be made, and nothing is so likely to 
convince them as this, that my interpretation is the 
true one. It was in making such an attempt,.that I 
was led to the views which have been stated. Not 
a vestige of evidence does the context afford, that our 
Lord attached such a meaning to these words as is 
generally given them. The only thing in support of 
such a meaning, is the false and entirely gratuitous sense 
affixed to the word heJl in the passage. But who does 
not see, and who will not allow, that if we are at lib- 
erty to affix what sense we please to the words of the 
Holy Spirit, there is an end put to all just interpreta- 
tion of the Scriptures? 

I am aware, that from verse 3. of chap. xxiv. 
"What shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the 
end of the world P it has been thought that our Lord 
blends in one description, the end of the Jewish state, 
and the end of this material world; and that the ca- 
lamities of the former were intended as a faint descrip- 
tion of the latter. Perhaps some may think that some- 
thing similar is the case with the passage we are con- 
sidering ; that when our Lord said, "how can ye es- 
cape the damnation of hell^" he included in one ex- 
pression, the temporal miseries of the Jews, and the 
eternal punishment of the wicked. Prophecies, say 
the objectors, have often a double meaning, and though 
in the first instance, our Lord by the damnation of 
hell, referred to the vengeance coming on the Jewish 
nation, it may also include the endless punishment 
of the wicked. In answer to this, I would observe, that 
this double view of Matth. xxiv. is now given up by 
most critics and commentators^ and that even by thosje 



132 AN INQUIRY iNtO 

who call themselves the orthodox. Mr* Stuart, in his 
letters to Dr. Chj^nning, p. 126, gives it up. He says, 
"of that clay and hour knoweth no man ; no, not the 
angels, which are in heaven, neither the son, but the 
father. The day and Aowr, according to some, is the 
day of judgment ; but as I apprehend, (from com- 
paring the context) the day of vengeance to the Jews 
is meant." — Here Mr. Stuart sets aside this double 
view of Matth. xxiv. and precisely by the same rule 
of interpretation, that 1 have set aside the popular 
sense attached to the words " damnation of hell," in 
the passage before us. If the context shows him, that 
by " that day and hour," is not meant the day of judg- 
ment, but the day of vengeance to the Jews, the con- 
text of the passage w^e are now considering as clearly 
shows, that, by the damnation of hell, is not meant a 
place of eternal misery, but that this very vengeance 
is meant. The fact is, this double view of Mattb. 
xxiv, is not only abandoned by Mr. Stuart, but by 
Whitby, M'Knight, Gill, and other commentators. 

But we are willing to notice this objection a little 
further. It is said in the above objection, that the ^ 
damna«ion of' hell may refer to the endless misery of 
the wicked, as well as to the temporal calamities com- 
ing on the Jewish nation, because prophecies have 
often a double meaning. In answ^er to this, we would 
simply remark, that the words damnation of hell 2iV^ 
not a prophesy, but a very plain declaration, put in 
the form of a question by pur Lord, to the persons 
whom he addressed. But admitting that they had oc- 
curred in the 24th chapter, where our Lord predicts 
the destruction of Jerusalem, we think the objector 
ought not to rest such an important article as the one 
in question, on a maybe^ hut a shall fee, not on ^perad- 
venture^ but an absolute certainty. If any evidence can 
be produced, that o^ Lord meant two such different 
ideas should be conveyed by the words damnation of 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 133 

hell^ we shall be happy to see it. But until the evi- 
dence of this is made apparent, the objection has no 
force. We cannot believe without evidence. The 
labour of proving this, belongs to the objector. What 
would he have said, had I assumed, without attempt- 
ing to prove, that Gehenna, Matth. xxiii. only refer- 
red to the temporal punishment of the Jews ? W hen 
the evidence we have adduced is invalidated, it will 
be time enough to admit the validity of this objection. 
So long as an examination of the context^ and the Scripture 
usage of words^ are considered safe rules in determining 
4he sense of any Scripture writer^ we shall feel somewhat 
confident^ that^ by the damnation of hell ^ a place of endless 
rnisery was not intended by our. Lord, But this double 
view of the expression damnation of hell^ is not only 
assumed, but it is assumed in face of evidence to the 
contrary. Our Lord, with the same breath, uttered 
the words, ''damnation of hell,-' and declared, ''all 
these things shall come upon this generation." But 
does he intimate in any part of the context, that this 
expression had another meaning, referring to eternal 
misery in a future state of existence ? If the damna-. 
tion of hell was to come on that generation, is it not 
in effect saying our Lord was mistaken to affirm that 
it also means endless punishment ? If he intimates n6 
such thing, ought we to put such a construction on his 
language ? And are we at liberty to do this, in oppo- 
sition to the scope of the context, and Scripture usage 
of the term Gehenna ? But further ; why assume this 
double sense of the term Gehenna in Matth. xxiii. 
and not give a double sense to almost every discourse 
eur Lord delivered ? If we take the liberty to do so 
here, are we not at the same liberty to do it in any oth- 
er of his discourses ? But such as do take this double 
view of Matth. xxiv. we leave them to settle the ac- 
count with Stuart, Whitby, M'Knight, Giil, and other 
coaimentators. Let them answer what these persons 
12 



134 AN INQUIRY INTO 

have said, showing that it refers only to the destruc- 
tion of Jerusalem and its attendant calamities. We 
are persuaded, that, if a favourite doctrine was not in 
danger of losing its support from the passage we are 
considering, such an objection would never be urged. 
The very circumstance of urging it in this case, is 
calculated to bring the doctrine into suspicion. 

But it perhaps may be also objected against the in- 
terpretation we have given, '^ why should our Lord 
speak of the temporal vengeance coming on the Jews, 
^s a damnation, or punishment of hell, or Gehenna? 
Is there any other part of Scripture, which authoriz- 
es such an interpretation of our Lord's words ?" Ir^ 
answer to this objection I would observe ; supposing 
there is not, still it remains a fact, that the context of 
this passage plainly authorizes the interpretation we 
have given them. Besides, the context gives no coun* 
tenance to the opposite interpretation. Will it not 
then be granted, that if I can show this view given, 
is supported by other parts of Scripture, that my in- 
terpretation must be admitted as correct ? Moreover, 
If I can show that our Lord could not be understood 
in any other sense, allowing the Scriptures to be the 
best commentary on his meaning, is not my view 
placed beyond all fair debate ? — 1 have contended that 
the Jews could not understand our Lord, by the '>dam- 
nation of hell," to mean a place of eternal misery, 
because Gehenna had no such meaning in the Old 
Testament. I now as fully contend, that if Gehenna 
is not used in the Old Testament in the sense I have 
given it, neitheir could the Jews understand him in 
this sense. Candour requires this. Well, on the other 
hand, ought not candour to allow, that if it is used in 
the Old Testament as an emblem of the temporal mis- 
eries coming on the Jewish nation, that in this sense 
it was used by our Lord, and understood by his hear- 
iecs ? I frankly admit, that if Gehenna was used in 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 1 S$ 

both these senses in the Old Testament, it might not 
be so easy to decide, in some passages of the New, 
which of these senses was intended by the writer. 
This could not, however, be the ease with the passage 
we are now considering, for the context clearly de- 
cides the sense in which it is used. But we are hap- 
pily free from all difficulty here, for, as we have seen, 
Dr. Campbell assures us, that Gehenna does not oc- 
cur in the Old Testament in the sense of a place of 
eternal misery. This we have also proved above, 
from an examination of all the texts in the Old Test- 
ament, where this word is found. 

2d, Let us now attend to the Scripture usage of the 
word Gehenna or hell. It has been established, that 
in the Old Testament the word Gehenna has no re- 
spect to eternal punishment. It has also been shown, 
that the Old Testament writers made Gehenna an em- 
blem of the temporal punishment which was to come 
upon the Jews, in the destruction of their city and 
temple by Titus. So far then as Scripture usage of 
this word in the Old Testament goes, it establishes 
the interpretation of our Lord's words in the passage 
before us. The prophet Jeremiah had made Gehen- 
na, or the valley of Hinnom, an emblem of this pun- 
ishment of the Jews ; and our Lord addressing this 
very people, says to them, " how can ye escape the 
punishment of Gehenna ?" Now notice the following 
things, which all concur to show that our Lord refer- 
red to Jeremiah's prophesy above considered. Jere- 
miah and our Lord evidently spoke to the same peo- 
ple, the Jews. Both speak of a punishment, and a 
very dreadful punishment, to this people. Both speak 
of temporal punishment, and not of eternal, to this 
people. Both, in speaking of this punishment, de- 
scribe it under the emblem of a punishment of Ge- 
henna. Neither of them give the least hint that the 
punishment they speak of, was a general punishment 



136 AN INQUIRY INTO 

for all wicked men, that it was in a future state of ex- 
istence, and of endless duration. Jeremiah foretold, 
some hundred years before, this punishment to the 
Jews, to the fathers of those very persons whom our 
Lord addressed, and to whom he said, " fill ye up then 
the measure of your fathers," and added, "all these 
things shall come on this generation." But I may add, 
that the time referred to by the prophet, when this 
punishment should be inflicted on the Jews, and that 
mentioned by our Lord, exactly agree. The time of 
which the prophet speaks, was when the Lord "was 
to bring upon them all the evil he had spoken of," and 
precisely accords with our Lord's words, "for these 
fee the days of vengeance, that all things which are 
written may he ftdfilled^'''' Luke xxi. 22. Jer. xix. 15. 

Must my view of Gehenna then he erroneous^ though sup-' 
ported by Scripture usage of this word in the Old Testa- 
ment^ and the context of the only passage in theNew^ wher$r 
any unhelieving persons were ever threatened with the pun-^ 
ishment of hell ? And muLst the common view of Gehenna 
he correct^ without any support from Scripture usage in th& 
Old Testament^ or the context of this passage ? 

But further ; if by the damnation of hell, our Lord 
did not refer to this prediction of Jeremiah, it is cer- 
tain that in no other place does he ever remind the 
Jews that such a punishment had been threatened 
them. Is it then probable that our Lord should en- 
tirely overlook such a plain and pointed prediction in 
speaking to the Jews? Is it possible that he should 
say so much to them about the punishment coming on 
their nation, and yet never hint to them, that it had 
been clearly foretold by one of their own prophets? 
He often quotes the prophets ; and is it likely Jere- 
miah's prediction, so full and plain in predicting pun- 
ishment to that generation, was altogether overlooked 
by him ? But it ought to be particularly noticed, that 
the passag^e under consideration occurs in the fullest 



THE WORD GEHENNA. X^ 

ttnd plainest discourse ever uttered by our Lord, con- 
cerning the temporal miseries coming on the Jewish 
nation. Besides, it is the only time he ever &aid a 
word about the damnation of hell. Why then, I ask, 
does it happen to be spoken of in such a discourse as 
this, and in no other? How comes it to pass, that if 
the damnation of hell means eternal misery, it should 
only be introduced in such a discourse? To this, I 
feel confident, no satisfactory answer can be given. 
If any one can account for it, we shall be happy to 
see it done, on Scriptural and rational principles. But 
before I dismiss this passage, permit me to bring the 
prophesy of Jeremiah a little mor^ into view in con- 
nexion with it. See this prophesy considered above, 
chap. ii. sect. 1. which ought to be consulted and 
compared with the passage under consideration. On 
both, taken together, I submit the following brief re- 
marks. 

1st, Who does not see that the prediction of Jere- 
miah and the discourse of our Lord, Matth. chaps, 
xxiii. and xxiv. speak of the same events? Com- 
paring both with that part of Josephus' history of the 
siege of Jerusalem, we see both minutely and affect- 
ingly fulfilled. Such a fulfilment of prophesy is cal- 
culated to silence infidels, confirm the faith of Chris- 
tians, and stimulate their researches into the true 
sense of Scripture. 

2d, It could not appear strange to the Jews, that 
our Lord should speak to them of the damnation or 
punishment of Gehenna, for under this \evy emblem 
the prophet Jeremiah had foretold great and dread- 
ful calamities to this people. With the prophet's lan- 
guage the ears of the Jews were familiar, so that they 
had no occasion to ask what he meant by the damna- 
tion of hell. Nor could they find fauU with him, in 
calling to their remembrance, a punishment to which 
they were exposed, so long ago foretold, but which 
12* 



ISS* AN mQUlRY INTO' 

was now near, even at the doors. Unless we suppose 
the Jews ignorant of the predictions of Jeremiah^ 
they could be at no loss what our Lord meant by the 
damnation of hell. Indeed, nothing but blindness of 
mind could have prevented them from fearful antici- 
pations of such dreadful calamities. Accordingly 
they asked no explanation, nor seemed surprised or 
offended at our Lord's saying, — "how can ye escape 
the damnation of hell ?" Is this likely to have been 
the case, if by this expression the Jews understood 
our Lord to threaten them with eternal misery in the 
world to come ? No sentiment our Lord ever uttered, 
was more calculated to shock their feelings, and rouse 
their indignation against him. To understand our 
Lord in this sense, was entirely at variance with their 
pride, prejudices, and religious opinions ; for the Jews 
had no idea that any of their nation should ever suf- 
fer eternal misery. See Whitby's note on Rom. ii» 
hereafter quoted, sect, v* 

3d, Let us for a moment suppose, that any of the 
declarations concerning Gehenna, in the New Testa- 
ment, had occurred in the above predictions of Jere- 
miah. For example, let us take the words of our Lord 
before us,*—" how can ye escape the damnation of 
hell ?" I ask any candid man how the Jews would 
''have understood these words, had they been uttered 
by the prophet, or how we would understand them ? 
It will, I presume, be readily answered, that the proph- 
et would be understood as threatening the temporal 
punishment v/hich he had been predicting. Must the 
words damnation of hell^ then, only mean temporal 
punishment, in the mouth of Jeremiah, but in our 
Lord's, eternal misery ? If these words would have 
conveyed no such idea in the days of Jeremiah, why 
should they in the days of our Lord, and especially 
as he not only seems to allude to Jeremiah's prophe- 
jry, but introduces them ia a discourse to the sam.a 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 139 

people, and in treating of the same temporal punish- 
ment ? It will not be said that our Lord was discours- 
ing about a future state of existence, or even on a 
different subject from that of the prophet when he 
used this expression. No: the subjects are precise- 
ly the same, and the same people were addressed. 

4th, 1 ask, was the expression, " damnation of hell,'' 
understood when our Lord used it, or was it without 
any meaning ? If the latter, then the idea of eternal 
misery is given up, at least from this expression. Be- 
sides, it is not very honourable to our Lord to say 
that he used this expression without any meaning. If 
the former is contended for, in what way was our 
Lord understood by his hearers? Nothing is said in 
the Old Testament, intimating that Gehenna was to 
have a different meaning under the gospel dispensa- 
tion. Nor in the New Testament is any thing said, 
showing that Gehenna was used there in a different 
sense from that which it had in the Old. By whose 
authority, and upon what rational and Scriptural 
ground, do we then interpret Gehenna, in the passage 
before us, so differently from its allowed sense in the 
Old Testament ? Our Lord was a Jew, and he spoke 
to Jews, who had the Old Testament in their hands. 
Until it is proved to the contrary, we must conclude 
that the Jews must have understood our Lord, by Ge- 
henna, as their Scriptures had taught them.. We think 
all will allow that this is at least a rational conclusion*, 
That it is a correct one, ought not to be denied, un- 
less it can be shown that our Lord laid aside the sense 
in which Jeremiah had used the word Gehenna, and 
adopted a new sense on the authority of the writers 
of the Targums. If our Lord did this as to the word 
Gehenna, we doubt if another instance of the kind can 
be produced from the New Testament. ♦ If it were 
proved that he did so, it follows, that instead of call- 
ing the attention of the Jews to the true sense of Scrip*. 



1 40 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ture, he rather encouraged them in a sense put on 
Scripture words of men's own invention. We have 
seen that Dr. Campbell avers, that our Lord spoke to 
the Jews in the dialect of their own Scriptures, and 
used words to which their reading of the law and the 
prophets had accustomed them ; and yet he contends 
for a sense given to Gehenna in the New Testament, 
which it never had either in the law or the prophets, 
5th, If we are to be indebted to the Targums how 
to understand the word Gehenna or hell, but few peo- 
ple could ever understand the New Testament on this 
subject. Is there one in a thousand who ever saw the 
Targums? and is there one in ten thousand who ever 
read them ? But until we have learned from such 
writings the true sense of the word Gehenna, we must 
either remain ignorant, or take this sense at second 
hand from others. But put the Bible into a man's 
hands, let him search it on this subject, and compare 
the New with the Old Testament, would be ever con- 
clude that the New Testament sense of Gehenna w^as 
so different from that of the Old? No; he would 
soon perceive, that there is an agreement, and a very 
striking agreement, between the writers of both Tes- 
taments in their sense and application of the word 
Gehenna. Scripture usage, and the context, safe rules 
in all other cases, would soon lead such a person to 
the same conclusion to which I have come, that our 
Lord by " the damnation of hell," did not mean pun- 
ishment in a place of endless misery .^ But it seems 
these safe rules of interpretation, must all be laid aside, 
to sit down at the feet of the writers of the Targums, 
to learn the meaning of Gehenna. But it is well known, 
how little confidence most people place in those writ- 
ings in other cases, though their authority is consid- 
ered good by many in the one before us. See the ar- 
gument drawn from the Targums and Apocrypha con- 
sidered, sect, v,^ 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 14l 

6th, That Gehenna was made an emblem of tem- 
poral punishment to the Jews, rests on divine author- 
ity. But, that it was made an emblem of eternal mis- 
ery, rests merely on human authority. Let us state 
a case, where system, and preconceived opinion be- 
ing out of sight, we would give a just decision, which 
of these authorities ought to be preferred. Suppose 
this case then reversed. In the Old Testament, let us 
suppose the word Gehenna to mean the place of eter- 
nal punishment for all the wicked. That this was its 
allowed sense, by critics and commentators, and that 
it never, in a single instance, meant temporal punish- 
ment. Suppose further, that the term Gehenna oc- 
curred twelve times in the New Testament. That 
upon examining one of the texts in which it occurred, 
say the passage before us, it evidently had the same 
sense as in the Old Testament. That the text and 
context clearly decided this to be its meaning. But 
one, say a Universalist, comes forward and informs 
us, from the Targums, that Gehenna, in the Old Tes- 
tament, in process of time, came to be used as an em- 
blem of temporal punishment, and at last came to be 
confined to it ; and that this was always and indispu- 
tably its meaning in the New Testament. This he 
roundly asserts, without any attempt at proof on the 
subject. — I ask what decision we would form in this 
case? Let candour decide, if we would not say that 
the doctrine of eternal punishment was put beyond 
all debate. And would not every man agree to con- 
demn the Universalist ? Happy, then, we would say^ 
is the man who condemneth not himself in the thing 
which he alloweth. But what would be the decision 
in favour of eternal punishment, and against the Uni- 
versalist, if upon examining all the other eleven places 
in the New Testament, it was found, that Gehen- 
na had the same or a similar sense as it had in the 
Old Testament, and in the one in the New Testament 



142 AN INQUIRY INTO 

where the context so clearly decided ? The triumph of 
the doctrine of eternal misery would be complete.*— 
We shall leave it for the decision of every man of 
candour, what to say, if it is proved that all the re- 
maining passages which speak of Gehenna, corrobo- 
rate the views I have advanced on the passage we 
have been considering. But all this would be con- 
sidered as strongly confirmed, if a number of facts 
were adduced, showing that no other sense could be 
rationally attached to the term Gehenna. We have 
adduced a few facts already, and have yet some more 
to produce, proving, that Gehenna cannot mean a 
place of endless misery for the wicked, but that it re- 
ferred to the temporal vengeance coming on the Jew- 
ish nation. We should like to see an equal number 
of such facts produced, showing that Gehenna does 
not mean this temporal vengeance, but eternal misery, 
before we are condemned for refusing to believe that 
this is its meaning. 

7th:, Supposing that the term Gehenna, in this pas- 
sage, was equivocaly B.8 it certainly is not, still, accord- 
ing to Dr. Campbell, my interpretation of the passage 
is correct. In his third Dissertation, sect. xi. he says : 
" Nothing can be more pertinent, or better founded, 
than the remark of M. Le Clerc, that 'a word which 
is equivocal by itself, is often so clearly limited to a 
particular signification by the strain of the discourse, 
as to leave no room for doubt.' " The strain of our 
Lord's discourse in this chapter, fixes the sense of 
Gehenna, to be what 1 have stated, so clearly and de- 
cisively, that no room is left for doubt. But let us 
hear Dr. Campbell further. In his ninth Disserta- 
tion, part i. sect. 13. he says, — "When a word in a 
sentence of Holy Writ is susceptible of two interpre- 
tations, so that the sentence, whichsoever of the two 
ways the word be interpreted, conveys a distinct 
meaning suitable to the scope of the place ; and when 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 143 

t)n[e of these interpretations expresses the common im-= 
port of the word in Holy Writ, and the other assigns 
it a meaning which it plainly has not in any other pas- 
sage of Scripture, the rules of criticism manifestly re- 
quire that we recur to the common acceptation of the 
term." This is just whatl have done with the term 
Gehenna in the passage before us. 1 have given it a 
meaning "suitable to the scope of the place." The 
sense 1 have given it, also " expresses the common 
impMDrt of the word in Holy Writ," where it is used as 
an emblem of punishment in the Old Testament. We 
shall see that it agrees also with all the places where 
it occurs in the New. The interpretation commonly 
given to Gehenna "assigns it a meaning which it 
plainly has not in any other passage of Scripture." 
^' The rules of criticism manifestly require" then, the 
interpretation which I have given this passage. The 
commonly received sense of this word, is therefore 
contrary to the rules of criticism, as declared by Dr* 
Campbell himself. 

I am aware that I have dwelt longeron this passage 
than was absolutely necessary. This I have done 
for several reasons. It is one of the principal texts, 
supposed to teach the doctrine of hell torments. — It 
is also the only text, where a punishment of Gehenna 
or hell, is threatened wicked men in the New Testa- 
ment, whether Jew or Gentile, It is also a text, the 
context of which decides cleariy, what our Lord 
meant by the punishment of Gehenna. It serves as a 
key to unlock the meaning of other places, where the 
circumstances in the context may not so clearly de- 
termine the sense of Gehenna. If our Lord did not, 
in this passage, mean by Gehenna a place of endless 
misery, there is no probability that in any other this 
was his meaning; for here he spoke to men, whom 
Josephus says, were the wickedest race of men that 
ever lived on the face of the earth. Since by the 



144 AN INQUIRY INTO 

<Jamnation of hell he did not threaten them with eter- 
nal punishment, it is not to be supposed that in any 
of the other texts he did this ; for what is said in them 
is addressed to his disciples. It is not likely he used 
Gehenna to express both a place of temporal and eter- 
nal punishment ; and it is less likely that he should 
threaten the unbelieving Jews with the former, and 
his own disciples with the latter. 

I shall now proceed to consider all the other texts 
in which Gehenna is used in the New Testament. A 
consideration of them will likely either confirm the 
views 1 have advanced, or detect the fallacy of my 
opinions. 

The first then I introduce, is Matth. v. 22. '' But 
I say unto you, that whosoever is angry with his 
brother without a cause, shall be in danger of the 
judgment; and whosoever shall say to his brother, 
raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whoso- 
ever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of h^ll 
(Gehenna) fire." In this passage there are three 
crimes and three punishments mentioned; the judg- 
ment, the council, and hell fire. It will be allowed 
that the two first of these punishments are of a tem- 
poral nature, and are confined to the present life. 
Why the third should be extended to a future state, 
and considered of endless duration, is not so easily 
perceived, unless we take it for granted that hell means 
the place of endless misery in a future state. But 
this ought not to be taken for granted,- for this is again 
taking for granted the very question in debate, A 
question very naturally arises on this text. — Is the 
guilt of being an.2:ry with, and calling a brother raca, 
deserving only of temporal punishment; and must call- 
ing him a fool, subject the off'ender to hell or eternal 
misery? This is far from being probable, if punish- 
ment is to be regulated by the nature and degree of 
the offence. But on this text let us heor Mr. Park- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 145 

hurst, wtio was as far from being a Universalist, as 
the east is distant from the west. He says, on the 
word Gehenna, — '^a Gehenna of fire, Matth, v. 22. 
does, 1 apprehend, in its outward diud primary sense ^ 
relate to that dreadful doom of being burnt alive in the 
valley of Hinnom.^'^ It is here allowed by Parkhurst, 
that Gehenna, in its outward and primary sense, re- 
lates to temporal punishment in the valley of Hinnom. 
Well, and let me ask, what is its inward and secondary 
sense? And to what in this sense does it relate ? Are 
persons who turn words and texts of Scripture aside 
from their outward and primary sense, under no obli- 
gation to inform us why they do so, and on whose 
authority it is done? If we take the liberty to turn 
words aside from their outward and primary sense, 
to suit ourselves in support of our religious system, 
what is it that may not be proved from the Bible? 
But if Gehenna, in this passage, is to have some other 
sense than its outward and primary one, two thirds 
of our work yet remains to be done. We have also to 
find out some other sense, than the outward and pri- 
mary sense, to the \Novds judgment and counciL If we 
take such liberty with the word Gehenna, why not 
also with those other words ? We must go through 
with the text, or show solid reasons why we do so 
only with the word Gehenna. Until this is done, let 
Gehenna be understood in the sense it has in the Old 
Testament, and also in the sense it had when our 
Lord addressed the unbelieving Jews, as we have 
seen in trhe preceding passage. There is certainly 
nothing, either in this text or its context, which shows 
that our Lord used the word Gehenna in a new and 
different sense from what it had in the Old Testament $ 
nothing which indicates that he meant by this word 
a place of endless misery. There is just as much 
reason to believe that he used the words judgment 
and council in a new sense, yea, foi* a place of ctcj-- 
13 ' 



146 AN INQUIRY INTO 

nal misery, as that he so used Gehenna* There w 
nothing but the popular idea which is affixed to this 
word, in favour of the one more than the other. This 
idea is attached to the word hell, and wherever we 
see it, pr hear it, the idea of a'place of endless mise- 
ry is always suggested by it. The same would have 
been the case, had the idea been affixed to either the 
word judgment or council. Why the word hell should 
be thought to mean a place of eternal misery in this 
text, rather than those other words, I can assign no 
other reason except the one just given. 

This is the first place in which the word Gehen- 
na occurs, and what is said was addressed by our 
Lord to his disciples. It is evident then, that our 
Lord began to speak of Gehenna to his disciples long 
before he said a word about it to the unbelieving Jews. 
One should think this rather strange, if by this word 
he meant to teach them the doctrine of eternal misery. 
Here he told them, that by calling their brother a 
fool, they were in danger of hell fire. What, then, it 
may be asked, did he mean by this hell fire, in thus 
addressing his disciples ? To this I answer, that we 
have seen Gehenna in the Old Testament made an 
emblem of the temporal miseries coming on the Jew^- 
ish nation. We have also seen from the preceding 
passage, that our Lord spoke of these miseries in the 
same way. If any of his disciples did not continue 
in obedience to him, but apostatized, they should be 
involved in the same temporal calamities with the rest 
of the Jews. Their safety from the damnation of hell 
was inseparably connected with constant faith and 
obedience. This damnation or punishment of hell 
was to come on that generation. It was to come on 
them as a thief, and to constant watchfulness the dis- 
ciples w^ere exhorted, that they might escape it. Ac- 
cordingly, let any one read Matth. xxiv. and see at 
what pains our Lord was to point out the signs which 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 147 

should precede the destruction of Jerusalem, and to 
give his disciples suitable directions how to conduct 
themselves in regard to it, so that they might be saved 
from all the dreadful calamities in which the Jewish 
nation was to be involved* 

Before I conclude my remarks on this text, it may 
just be noticed, that neither in this passage, nor in 
any other where our Lord addressed his disciples, 
does he speak about Grehenna to them as he did to 
the unbelieving Jews. Here he says, by calling their 
brother a fool, they would be in danger of hell fire ; 
but when he addressed the unbelieving Jews, he said, 
^^ how can ye escape the damnation of hell?'' In this 
last passage, let it be noticed, that the word damna- 
tion is connected with the word Gehenna or hell. In 
the passage before us, the word^re is connected with 
it. We have shown above that the word damnation 
simply means judgment or punishment. In remark- 
ing on one of the passages yet to be considered, I 
shall show that the word ^re is used figuratively to 
express temporal punishment. Inattention to this ap- 
parently trifling circumstance, has led to some very 
mistaken views of many parts of Scripture. 

Perhaps the following objection may be urged 
against my view of this passage. — ^^^ Allowing Gehen- 
na to refer to the temporal punishment coming on the 
Jewish nation, why did calling a brother a fool, sub- 
ject to this punishment, rather than the other crimes 
here mentioned ?" In answer to this, let it be observ- 
ed, that as hell fire, or God's temporal judgments on 
the Jewish nation, is the severest punishment men- 
tioned in the passage, we may expect that the crime 
of which it is the punishment, would also be the great- 
est. Accordingly, the word moreh^ in the common ver-, 
sion rendered " fool," Dr. Campbell renders " miscre-*^ 
ant." In his preface to Matthew's gospel, sect. xxv. 
be says,—" the word moreh^ here used by thq evan«- 



148 AN INQUIRY INTO 

gelist, differs only in number from morim^ the com- 
pellation with which Moses and Aaron addressed the 
people of Israel, when they said, Numb. xx. 10. with 
manifest and indecent passion, as rendered in the En- 
glish Bible, Hearnow^ ye rebels, and were, for their 
punishment, not permitted to enter the land of Ca- 
naan. The w^ord, however, as it is oftener used to 
imply rebellion against God than against any earthly 
sovereign ; and as it includes disbelief of his- word, as 
well as disobedience to his command, 1 think better 
rendered in this place yniscreant^ which is also, like the 
original term, expressive of the greatest abhorrence 
and detestation. In this way translated, the grada- 
tion of crimes, as well as of punishments, is preserv- 
ed, and the impropriety avoided of delivering a moral 
precept, of consequence to men of all denominations, 
in words intelligible only to the learned.'^ This, we 
think, fully meets the objection, and the gradation of 
crimes, as well as of punishments, is preserved. 

The next passage occurs in verses 29, and 30. of 
the same chapter. " And if thy right eye offend thee, 
pluck it out and cast it from thee : for it is profitable 
for thee that one of thy members should perish, and 
not that thy whole body should be cast into hell. 
And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off and cast 
it from the? : for it is profitable for thee that one of 
thy members should perish, and not that thy whole 
body should be cast into hell." On this passage it 
may be observed in general, that if the word hell does 
not mean the place of endless misery in verse 22. it 
is not in the least probable that this is its meaning 
here. Our Lord surely would not use it with the 
same breath in two such different senses, without any 
intimation of this, and especially in addressing the 
same persons. But I shall proceed to consider this 
passage; observing that many of the remarks to be 
made, apply to several other passages yet tube con:- 



TH^ WORD GEHENNA. 149 

¥idered. The reason of this is obvious. In other 
passages the very same things are stated, and in al- 
most the very same words. By considering them all 
here, it will save time and labour, and supersede the 
necessity of again repeating the same remarks when 
we come to those other passages. 

1st, Then, let us consider what our Lord meant by 
a right eye, and a right hand. It should be remem- 
bered that he was addressing his disciples. All will 
allow that this language is not to be understood liter- 
ally. What our Lord meant by this figurative lan- 
guage, is explained in verse ^8. and other preceding 
verses, to be their evil passions and propensities, dear 
to them as a right eye or hand. 

2d, What did our Lord mean by these offending 
them? It is well known that the word translated of- 
fend, signifies to cause to stumble, and is in some 
places translated a stumbling block. By their right 
eye or hand offending them, then, must be meant^ 
their unsubdued passions and propensities causing 
them to stumble and fall from their profession of 
Christ's name. If these proved a stumbling block, or 
caused them to offend, they thereby exposed them- 
selves to the punishment of hell fire. It was profita* 
ble, therefore, for them to subdue these, or to part 
with them, though dear to them as members of their 
bodies, than expose themselves to such a punishment. 
This, so far, I presume, will be allowed as our Lord's 
meaning, whatever sense we give the word Gehenna 
or hell in this passage. Is it then asked— What does 
our Lord mean by Gehenna or hell ? I answer, the very 
same punishment which he threatened the unbeliev- 
ing Jews with, Matth. xxiii. aS. when he said to them, 
*'how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" — If his 
disciples indulged their lusts, and proved apostates 
from their profession, they should be involved in the 
same dreadful calamities with the rest of the Jewish 

la* 



t50 AN INQUIRY INTO^ 

nation. Accordingly, he said to his disciples, Mattfc 
xxiv. 13, — ''he that shall endure to the end, the same 
shall be saved." If the question is asked, — Saved 
from what? The context clearly shows, that they 
should be saved from all the temporal calamities fore- 
told by our Lord, which were to come on that gene- 
ration. All who did endure to the end of the Jewish 
state, were saved. M'Knight, in a note on Matth. 
xxiv. thus writes: — "The people of the church in 
Jerusalem being ordered by an oracle given to the 
faithful in that place, by revelation, left the city be- 
fore the war, and dwelt in a city of Perea, the name 
of which was Pella." This oracle, perhaps, was no 
other than the information our Lord gave his disci- 
ples in Matth. xxiv. If they attended to it, they need- 
ed no other oracle. But 1 only notice this, without 
pretending to decide about it. As to his disciples, the 
following is very evident. Patient enduring to the 
end, w^as not only connected with their temporal safe- 
ty, but attention to the directions given Matth. xxiv. 
If one of them, being in the field, returned back to 
take his clothes, the safety promised might not be ob- 
tained. No worldly consideration was to be an apol- 
ogy for a moment's delay, but with the utmost speed 
they were to make their escape. When our Lord 
spoke of the punishment of hell to the unbelieving 
Jews, he mentioned it as a thing they could not es- 
cape. " How can ye escape the damnation of hell ?" 
They had nearly filled up the measure of their iniqui- 
ty, and upon them was to come all the righteous blood 
shed upon the earth. But when he spoke to the dis- 
ciples about this^ punishment, he spoke of it as a thing 
they might escape, if they attended to the instructions 
which he gave them.. See Matth. xxiv. where he is 
at great pains in pointing out the course they must 
pursue, if they would avoid the impending destruc- 
tion. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 151 

We then see a very good reason why our Lord 
said so much to his disciples about the punishment of 
hell, and so little to the unbelieving Jews. Allowing 
that hell does not mean a place of endless misery, but 
the temporal calamities coming on the Jews, every 
thing said about it is just what might be expected. 
But can it ever be rationally and scripturally account- 
ed for, that our Lord should only once mention ''the 
damnation of hell" to the unbelieving Jews, if thereby 
he meant a punishment in eternal torment? Besides, 
doesnot this view rationally and Scripturally account 
for the very extraordinary fact, that not a word about 
hell or Gehenna is said to the Gentiles by any of the 
inspired writers? How is this fact to be accounted 
for on the common view given of the punishment of 
Gehenna? If my view bcallowed correct, it rationally, 
and I think Scripturally, accounts for these things^. 
That it does account for them, is some evidence that 
it is correct. 

3d, Let us now consider the language of this pas-- 
sage, and see if it does not confirm these views of the 
subject. It is said twice, — " and not that thy whole 
body should be cast into hell or Gehenna." This lan- 
guage is not in unison with the common ideas enter- 
tained of hell. Do we ever hear a preacher tell his 
audience, that their ''whole body shall be cast into 
hell, or that body and soul shall be cast into it ?" No; 
they allow that the soul only goes there at death, and 
the bpdy returns to the dust, and not at least until the 
resurrection, do both go there together. The phrase 
" thy whole body," appears to be of the same import 
with that expressed in another passage by the words 
" soul and body.''^ We shall show hereafter, that by 
the word souh is not meant, as is generally believed, 
the spirit^which. exists in a separate statefrom the body,, 
but natural life. See on Matth. x. 28. below. Another 
thing ought to be noticed, that preachers now only 



152 AN INQUIRY INTO 

threaten men with the punishment of hell if they con- 
tinue in unbelief; but here our Lord threatened his 
disciples with it if they did not cut off a right hand, 
and pluck out a right eye; or, in plain language, did 
not part with every thing dear to them, rather than 
disobey the Saviour. Besides, he said most about 
hell to those in least danger of it, and only mentioned 
it once to those in the greatest danger. — The conduct 
of preachers in our day, about this, is precisely the 
reverse of his. All they say of hell is said to the 
wicked. 

By consulting the context of this passage, it will be 
seen, that there is nothing in it to support the idea, 
that hell is a place of endless misery. Any evidence 
it affords, rather goes to prove the view I have given 
of it. But as a consideration of it, would only lead 
to similar remarks made already, I pass it over. 

The next passage is Matth. xviii. 8, 9. " Where- 
fore, if thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off 
and cast them from thee : it is better for thee to en- 
ter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two 
hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. And 
if thine eye offend th^e, pluck it out and cast it from 
thee : it is better for thee to enter into life with one 
eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell 
fire." — It need hardly be noticed, that the remarks 
made on the preceding passage about a right hand or 
eye offending, equally apply here, and need not be 
repeated. If correct there, they must be so here. 
The remarks also about Gehenna, are applicable 
hei*e, and neither need they be repeated. 1 shall 
therefore proceed to notice some additional observa- 
tions which this passage affords us an the subject. 

Observe then, that the same phraseology, " to be 
cast into hell," occurs in this passage, which occurred 
in Matth. v. 29, 30. The only difference is, that here, 
iu verse 9jthe word^re is added, which is there omit- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 153 

ted. This word I noticed, in considering Matth.^^ V. 
22. was used figuratively to express temporal punish- 
ment, and meant the same as the word damnation^ 
which also signifies punishment. But this shall be 
more fully considered presently. Let it be further 
observed, that in the present passage, the very same 
idea which in verse 9. is expressed by the phrase, 
"cast into hell fire," is expressed in verse 8. by the 
words, "everlasting fire." I think no one will dis- 
pute that these two phrases are used as convertible 
expressions for the very same thing. Should any one 
be inclined to contend, that the word everlasting in the 
one verse, expresses the additional idea of the dura- 
tion of the punishment, I am not disposed to dispute 
this. It will soon be seen that my views do not re- 
quire ray engaging in such disputes. All I would say 
at present about this, is, that before any person con- 
tends for the everlasting duration of the puuishraent 
of hell, he ought first to settle beyond dispute, that 
hell is a place of punishment for the wicked in a fu- 
ture state. The place should first be proved to ex- 
ist, before the everlasting duration of \H punishment 
be brought forward for discussion. If this cannot be 
done, all debate respecting its everlasting duration, is 
only beating the air.. If it should be said, that " it is 
the word everlastings applied to the punishment of hell 
or Gehenna^ that proves that hell is a place of future 
misery ; for surely no temporal punishment can be 
everlasting in its duration ;" to this I answer, — that it 
is this very word everlastings being applied to Gehen- 
na or hell fire, that convinces me that hell has no ref- 
erence to a place of eternal misery for the wicked. 
Evidence, and 1 hope satisfactory evidence of this, 
will appear in the sequel. But to return to the phrase^ 
"everlasting fire," in the passage before us. This 
expression, I find, occurs only in two other places in 
the New Testament, Matth. xxv. 41. and Jude 7. 



154 AN INQUIRY INTO 

These passages we do not profess to consider here* 
They are only noticed so far as is necessary for the 
illustration of the phrase everlasting fire in this pas- 
sage. On this phrase, then, I remark, 

1st, That those who have attended to Scripture 
figures and modes of speaking, know that the word 
fire is a very common figure of speech to express tern- 
poral punishment, or God^s judgments upon any peo- 
ple. Lest this should be disputed by any one, I re- 
fer to the following, among manj?- other texts which 
might be quoted in proof. See Deut. xxxii. 22^ — 25.^ 
Isai. Ixvi. 15, 16. and v. 24,25. and xxx. 27 — 33. 
and ix. 18, 19. Isai. x. 16—18. Ezek. xxii. 18—22, 
41. See also the two first chapters of Amos. I shall 
only quote one or two texts to shovv the truth of this. 
Thus in Lam. ii. 3. Jeremiah, speaking of God's pun- 
ishment on the Jews, says, — "he burned against Ja- 
cob like a flaming fire, which devoureth round about." 
And David says. Psalm Ixxxix. 46^. "shall thy wrath 
burn like fire ?'' In further evidence of this, and evi- 
dence which will be allowed conclusive, let Matth. 
XXV. 41. be compared with verse 46. All will allow 
that what is called everlasting fire in the first, and ex- 
pressed figuratively, is in the last verse expressed 
plainly without the figure, and called everlasting pun- 
ishment. Indeed, nothing is more evident, than that 
fire is a common figure in Scripture for temporal pun- 
ishment. This, I think, will be admitted, whatever 
may be the meaning of the expression, everlasting fi^^e^ 
in any passage where it occurs. 

2d, What then is the meaning of the expression, 
^' everlasting fire^'^^ and which is equivalent to " /le/Z 
fire ?" To save time, and repetition of remark, I shall 
leave the answer to this question to be given in con- 
sidering the next passage, where we have for the 
phrase everlasting fire here, the equivalent expres- 
sion, " the fire that shall never be quenched.'^ — Before 



THE WORD GEHENNA. i55 

closing my remarks on this text, let it be noticed, that 
the phrase, "to enter into life," occurs twice. This 
is necessary to be observed, because in the next pas- 
sage I shall have occasion to consider it in connexion 
with the equivalent expression, '^ to enter into the king- 
dom of God." Whoever examines the context of this 
passage, may see that it affords no evidence that our 
Lord, by Gehenna, meant a place of endless misery. 
This sense of Gehenna here, as in other places, is 
taken for granted. It is assumed with as much con- 
fidence, as if the context clearly decided that this and 
no other could be its meaning. We have settled the 
sense in which our Lord used this word, in consider- 
ing Matth. xxiii. 33. and also from its use in the Old 
Testament. Until it can be shown that tie used it to 
signify a place of endless misery in some other text, 
this ought to be allowed to be our Lord's general usage 
of this word. It is certain ciothing in this text or its 
context leads to such a conclusion. It rather affords 
some evidence in confirmation of the sense we have 
given it, but we deem it unnecessary to notice it. 

Mark ix. 43 — 49. is the next passage. " And if thy 
hand offend thee, cut it off": it is better for thee to en- 
ter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into 
hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched ; where 
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, 
and if thy foot offend thee, cut it off": it is better for 
thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be 
cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quench- 
ed; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched And if thine eye off'end thee, pluck it out : 
it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God 
with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell 
fire ; where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." This is the longest and most terrific de- 
scription given of Gehenna, or hell, in the Bible. No 
doubt is entertained by most Christians, that it is a 



156 AN INQUIRY INTO 

conclusive proof of the doctrine of eternal misery* 
I once thought so myself, and need not wonder that 
others should still be of this opinion. I now think, 
that so far from its teaching this doctrine, it in a very 
strong manner, confirms the views I have advanced 
on all the above passages. I must therefore be in- 
dulged in a pretty full examination of it, with a view 
to show this. Several things occur here, which have 
been considered in preceding passages. For exam- 
ple, we have considered what is meant by cutting off 
a right hand, and plucking out a right eye. Also, the 
expression, "to be cast into hell or hell fire." In this 
passage w^e have the expression, "to go into hell," 
once, and " to be cast into hell," twice. All, howev- 
er, i think, will allow that this is only a slight varia- 
tion of the words in expressing the same idea. The 
remarks, therefore, made already on these phrases, 
need not be here repeated. 

Some things omitted on the last text, we shall now 
attempt to consider in connexion with the same or sin> 
ilar phraseology in this passage. It was noticed there, 
that the phrase, " to enter into life," occurred twice. 
I now desire it to be noticed, that the very same phrase 
occurs also twice in this passage. Observe, however, 
that as an equivalent expression we have the phrase, 
"to enter into the kingdom of God." It cannot be 
doubted that these two expressions convey the same 
meaning, whatever that meaning may be. This can 
be easily shown from other places, if it be disputed. 
It is of great importance to a right understanding of 
the texts in which these two expressions occur, " to 
enter into life," or " to enter into the kingdom of God," 
to ascertain what is their precise meaning. To ar- 
rive at this, let it be observed, that when we compare 
the four gospels, we find that where Mark, Luke and 
John, for the most part use the phrase, "kingdom of 
God," Matthew uses the expression, "kingdom of 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 157 

heav^n.'^ See Dr. Campbell's fifth dissertation, 
where this is shown at length. Indeed, no one can 
doubt it, who reads the four gospels. To enter into 
the kingdom of heaven, or into the kingdom of God 
here, does not mean, as many suppose, to enter into 
the heavenly state, but to enter into the kingdom, or 
reign, of the Messiah in the present world. That this 
is the sense often of the phrases kingdom of God^ and 
kingdom of heavm^ {ewvfWX question, who have ever 
read the New Testament. The dissertation just re- 
ferred to, fully and clearly establishes this. That to 
enter into the kingdom of God or of heaven, signifies 
to enter into Christ's kingdom, or reign, in this world, 
I shall now attempt to show. !n proof of this, 1 
quote Matth. xviii. 3. where our Lord says, "verily 
1 say unto you, except ye be converted, and become 
as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom 
of heaven." Here entering into the kingdom of 
heaven, means entering into the reign or kingdom of 
Christ in this world. Should it be said, — '^ were not 
the disciples already in Christ's kingdom in this re- 
spect?" I answer no ; for in this sense his kingdom 
was not then come. John, Jesus, and his disciples, 
only preached this kingdom as coming, or as at hand. 
Christ's kingdom or reign did not, properly speaking, 
begin until after his resurrection and exaltation to the 
right hand of God. Our Lord's words plainly imply 
that his disciples were not in his kingdom, nor could 
they afterwards enter it, unless they were converted. 
Dr. Campbell, on this text, says, — ''they must lay 
aside their ambition and worldly pursuits, before they 
be honoured to be the members, much more the min- 
isters, of that new establishment' or kingdom he was 
about to erect." M'Knight, on this passage, takes the 
same view of it, w^hich I need not quote. Besides, it 
is evident that in one sense his kingdom did not come 
^until the destruction of Jerusalem. As 1 think itwas 
14 



158 AN INQUIRY INTO 

about entering his kingdom at this period our Lord 
spoke in the passage before us, I notice the following 
things by way of proof and illustration. Thus in 
Luke xxi. 31, 32. " so likewise ye, when ye shall see 
these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom 
of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto }ou, this 
generation shall not pass away till all be fulfilled.^' 
Jt is evident from this passage, that the kingdom of 
God, in some sense or other, was not to come until the 
end of the Jewish dispensation. It was at this period 
to come with power, Mark ix. 1. and comp. Matth. 
xvi. 28. See Whitby on these texts, who takes the 
same view of our Lord's kingdom which is here given. 
But in proof of this view of entering into Christ's 
kingdom, I shall here quote the following from Dr. 
Campbell's note on Matth. xix. 28. He says : — '^ We 
are accustomed to apply the term regeneration solely 
to the conversion of individuals ; whereas its relation 
here is to the general state of things. As they were 
wont to denominate the creation yivicig^ a remarkable 
restoration, or renovation of the face of things, was 
very suitably termed %oLKiyyiv^(Tioi>. The return of the 
Israelites to their own land, after the Babylonish cap- 
tivity, is so named by Josephus, the Jewish historian. 
What was said on verse 23. holds equally in regard 
to the promise we have here. The principal comple- 
tion wuU be at the general resurrection, when there 
will be, in the most important sense, a renovation^ or 
regeneration of heaven and earth, when al! things shall 
become new; yet in a subordinate sense, it may be 
said to have been accomplished when God came to 
visit, in judgment, that guilty land ; when the old dis- 
pensation was utterly abolished, and .succeeded by 
the Christian dispensation, into which the Gentiles, 
Irom every quarter, as well as Jews, were called and 
admitted." 



1 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 159 

Let US now apply these remarks to the texts under 
consideration. To enter into life, or to enter into the 
kingdom of God, is in the passage before us contrast- 
ed with going into, or being cast into hell. As the 
former does not mean to enter into heaven, the place 
of the righteous, but into Christ^s kingdom, or reign, 
in this world, so the latter cannot mean, to be cast into 
a place of endless misery, but to suffer the punishment 
of which we have seen Gehenna made an emblem. 
Understanding our Lord, "by entering into life," or 
" into the kingdom of God," in this way, what he says 
in this passage to his disciples, was pertinent, and pe- 
culiarly suited to their circumstances. It was " bet- 
ter," it was "profitable" for them thus to enter into 
his kingdom with the loss of every thing dear to them, 
rather than retaining these, to be cast into hell fire, 
or to suffer all the dreadful calamities foretold by 
Jeremiah in the predictions considered above, and 
described by our Lord, Matth. xxiv. At the time of 
the destruction of Jerusalem, the unbelieving Jews 
were to suffer the damnation of hell^ and at this pe- 
riod all his disciples who endured to the end, were 
not only to be saved from this punishment, but were 
to enter into his kingdom, or reign, with him ; and the 
apostles to sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve 
tribes of Israel. But such of his professed disciples 
as did not cut off a right hand and pluck out a right 
eye, or did not endure to the end, should share in the 
same calamities, or suffer the punishment of which we 
have seen Gehenna made an emblem by Jeremiah, 
and also by our Lord. Whitby, on Luke xxi. 34— 
36. thus writes : — "Here our Saviour calls upon the 
believing Christians to take care, and use the great- 
est vigilance that they do not miscarry in this dread- 
ful season, by reason of that excess and luxury which 
may render them unmindful of it, or those cares 
which may render them unwilling to part with their 



160 AN lN<iUlRlf INTO 

temporal ^concerns, lest they should be involved in 
that ruin which would come on others, as a snare, 
suddenly and unexpectedly; and that they should 
add to this vigilance constant prayer to God, that 
they may be found worthy to escape these tremend- 
ous judgments, and might stand safely and boldly be- 
fore the Son of man, when he comes to execute them 
on the unbelieving Jews/' 

It is easily seen that this passage not only efgrees 
with the preceding texts, but also accounts for the fact 
why the Saviour should say so much to the disciples 
concerning hell or Gehenna, and s^o little to the un- 
believing Jews. Besidea>5 it also accounts for the fact 
which can never be accounted for on the common 
view of hell, namely, that not a word is said concern- 
ing it to the Gentiles. If the punishment of hell be 
as I have attempted to show, the temporal vengeance 
which came on the Jewish nation, all is plain, con- 
sistent,- and rational. But how can it ever be ac- 
counted for on rational and Scriptural grounds, that 
no Gentile was ever threatened with such a punish- 
ment? We are sinners of the Gentiles, and are 
threatened with everlasting punishment in hell by 
preachers in our day. It becomes them to account 
for this, seeing they are without any authority either 
from Christ or his apostles for so doing. If they never 
said a word about hell in their preaching to the Gen- 
tiles, from what source of information is it learned 
ihd^i preachers now are authorized to teach such a doc- 
trine to them ? Are we obliged to receive this im- 
plicitly on their ipse dixit? 

But it perhaps may be said, — '^plausible as all this 
appears, and however difficult it may be to account 
for those facts, how is your view of the punishment of 
hell to be reconciled with other things stated in this 
very passage ?" To this I shall now pay attention ; 
^nd permit p:ie to say, that it is the perfect agreement 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 161 

of these very things with the view I have given, which 
confirms me in the opinion that it is substantially cor- 
rect. Observe, then, that Gehenna, or hell, is called 
in this passage twice, "the fire that never shall be 
quenched." See verses 43, 45. Indeed, properly 
speaking, this expression occurs no less than five times: 
for it is three times said, by way of addition, " where 
their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." 
In my remarks on the last passage, I promised to con- 
sider here the phrase, " everlasting fire," in connex- 
ion with these expressions. This promise I shall now 
attempt to fulfil. I need hardly notice that the ex- 
pressior-s, " everlasting fire,-' and the " fire that shall 
never be quenched," five times mentioned in this pas- 
sage, express the very same idea. No man, I pre- 
sume, will dispute this. Who would undertake to 
point out a difference between " everlasting fire," and 
the " fire that never shall be quenched ?" It would 
be to make a distinction without a diff*erehce. I am 
fully aware that it may be said, this is rather increas- 
ing the difficulty than removing it. I notice these 
things for the very purpose, that the difficulty may be 
viewed in all its force and extent. Here then, we 
have in the course of a few verses, a solemn declara- 
tion made by the Saviour, no less than five times, that 
the fire of hell shall never be quenched, and no less 
than three times is it added, " where their worm dieth 
not." And as if this was not enough, in a parallel 
text it is said that the fire of hell is " everlasting fire." 
No man can now say but I have presented this de- 
scription of Gehenna fully and fairly, and in its most 
formidable array. I allow that all this looks very 
terrible, and seems as if I must certainly be mistaken 
in saying that the punishment of hell refers to the 
temporal vengeance which came on the nation of the 
Jews. But truly I must say that few things I have 
yet stated, appear to me so powerful in support of my 
14* 



10^ . AN IN(%UIRY INTO 

views, as what is said in this passage. When these 
things are fairly examined, and the Scriptures are ad^ 
mitted as the interpreter of the language which is here 
used, few I think will be found to question this. The 
things we are about to state, at any period of our 
lives, would have staggered our faith, that such ex- 
pressions had any reference to endless misery in a 
future state of existence. They are such, as on other 
subjects, would be deemed irresistible evidence. I 
may just notice in the outset, what I think will be 
readily admitted, that all the expressions in this pas- 
sage oboui the worm that shall never die^ and the fire that 
never shall he quenched^ together with the expressions, 
everlasting fire^ being cast into hell jire^ and going into 
hell^ in other texts, all refer to one and the same punish- 
ment. The same punishment is described, although 
somewhat different language is used in speaking of it. 
Keeping these things in view, with the remarks made 
on the preceding texts, I shall proceed to consider 
what is stated in the passage before us. 

It is, then, said of hell or Gehenna, — " where their 
worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." Were 
these words understood stridly^ and literally of a place 
of endless misery^ it would prove that there is not only 
material fire there, but that there are also worms in 
hell. Some have maintained, and a few perhaps still 
maintain, that the fire of hell is a literal fire. It is 
evident that most orthodox preachers still continue to 
speak as if the fire of hell was real, literal fire. Why 
speak about it as such if they do not believe it to be 
so, unless they intend to practise deception on the 
people? But we presume no one ever believed that 
there were worms in the place called hell, or eternal 
misery. If such an opinion was ever held, we are ig- 
norant of it. But why not believe that thene are 
worms in hell as well as literal fire? for if Gehenna 
aignifies a place of endless misery, it teaches lilerat 



THE WORD GEHENNA. . ^ l&S 

fire and literal worms on the same aufclrority ? Besides, 
it is implied that the body is there, for worms to feed 
on, which they could not do on the spirit. 1 am fully 

"^ aware that the worm that shall never die, has been 
long and universally interpreted to mean conscience^ 
whicli is to torment the subject of it forever^ But this 
is a private interpretation ; for I do not know of a sin- 
gle text in the Bible, in which conscience is ever spoken 
of under the figure of a worm^ either in this or a fu- 
ture state of existence. Unless then, something like 
proof of this is produced from the Bible, such an in- 
terpretation cannot be for a moment admitted. It may 
then be asked, — '' what do these words mean ?" Let 
us hear what Mr. Parkhurst says on the words,—. 
"^where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not 
quenched." He thus writes on the word Gehenna: 
— " Our Lord seems to allude to the worms which con- 
tinually preyed on the dead carcases that were cast 
out into the valley of Hinnom, ysevv^jtv, and to theper- 
peiiial fire there kept up to consume them. Comp. 
Eceles. vii. 17. Judith xvi. 17. And see the learned 
Joseph Mede's works, fol. p. 31." Here then is a 
place where their worm dieth not, and the fire that 
shall never be quenched; not in a place of eternal 
misery in a future state^ but in the valley of Hinnom, 
near Jerusalem. Let it now be recollected, that the 
valley of Hinnom w^as made an emblem of the terri- 
ble calamities which were to come on the Jewish na- 
tion. No place was so wretched and abominable as 
the valley of Hinnom, and no place known to a Jew, 
could be made so fit an emblem of such miseries. 

But we have something more to produce, and some- 
thing which we think ought to be admitted as conclu- 
sive, in determining in what sense our Lord's words 
ought to be understood in this passage. — It is certain 
then, that our Lord here quotes Isai. Ixvi. 24. w^here 
U is said,— '^ and they shall go forth and look upoB 



164 AN INQUIRY INTO 

the carcases of the men that have transgressed against 
me ; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their 
fire be quenched, and they shall Idc an abhorring unto 
all flesh." — A remark is made by Mr. Stuart, in his 
letters to Dr. Channing, p. 69. which very well ap- 
plies here. He says, — "it will be remembered that 
the passage in question is a quotation from the Old 
Testament; and that to quote the language of the 
Old Testament, therefore, in order to explain it, is 
peculiarly appropriate and necessary." Let us see 
how peculiarly appropriate and necessary this pas- 
sage from the Old Testament is, in explaining the 
words of our Lord before us. Suffer me then to ask, 
— did Isaiah mean a place of endless misery, when 
he said, '-for their worm shall not die, neither shall 
their fire be quenched ?" Was Isaiah so understood 
when he uttered these words? I have to ask further, 
did the Jews so understand these words when they 
read them in the prophet? Yea, 1 ask still further, 
did our Lord's disciples so understand the prophet's 
words when they read them there? Can any or all 
of these questions, with truth, be answered in the af- 
firmative ? As this will not be so much as pretended, 
how comes it to pass that they are made to mean a 
place of endless misery when quoted by our Lord ? 
By what rule of interpretation, do we make Isaiah, 
by these words, only to mean temporal calamities, but 
when our Lord quotes them, we make them to mean 
endless misery? I urge this; on what grounds, and 
by what authority do we make Isaiah and our Lord 
to have two such different meanings to the same 
words ? Yea, I press it upon all who regard the 
words of the living God, to think how it was possible 
that our Lord's disciples could understand him in this 
sense, when those very words were understood by 
them in so very different a sense v/hen they read 
them in the prophet? It is evident our Lord did not 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 165 

explain them in this new sense to the disciples, nor 
gave the slighest hint that he made any alteration in 
the meaning of the prophet's words by quoting them. 
Until it is therefore proved, that by these words 
Isaiah meant a place of future endless misery, I might 
excuse myself from any further remarks on them. 
But as they very strongly confirm the views I have 
given of Gehenna or hell, in the preceding passages, 
1 proceed. 

On this passage in the prophet, let it be remarked, 
that the chapter in which it stands, evidently relates to 
events which were to take place under the gospel dis- 
pensation. The new heavens and new earth, men- 
tioned verse 22. refer to this period, and the exten- 
sion of the gospel to the Gentiles, is repeatedly spoken 
of in the course of the chapter. But let us attend to 
the passage, and go over what is said in it, and if pos- 
sible ascertain the meaning of the prophet. It is 
said, — " and they shall go forth, and look upon the 
carcases of the men that have transgressed against 
me." Let us ask here, who are the men referred to, 
and who are said to have transgressed against the 
Lord? I think the context shows them to be the un- 
believing, disobedient Jews. Evidence of this will 
appear as we proceed. Again ; let us ask, who shall 
go forth and look upsn the carcases of the Jews who 
had thus transgressed against the Lord? The preced- 
ing verses show that they are the persons who ii^orship 
and o6ei/ the Lord. But again; let us ask, to what 
place they shall go forth and look upon the carcases 
of the men who have transgressed against the Lord? 
Not surely to a place of endless misery? The con- 
nexion of this with the next part of the passage shows 
that they shall go forth to the place where ''their 
w^orm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched." If it 
is said, by way of objection, — '^'is not this the place 
€>f endless misery, and is not this sufficiently obvious 



166 AN INQUIRY INTO 

from the words, their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
not quenched?" I must answer it is not. We think 
this can be proved from a variety of evidence, which 
few, if any, will undertake to dispute. This we shall 
show presently is not the Scripture meaning of these 
expressions, but that they refer to temporal punish- 
ment and to the punishment of the Jews as a nation. 
Here I would only ask — do any persons go forth either 
from this world or from heaven to a place of endless 
misery, to look upon the carcases of men who have 
transgressed against the Lord? Besides, is it not a 
very strange mode of speaking, to speak of the car- 
cases of persons in a place of endless misery? But if 
we understand this place to be tophet, or the valley 
of Flinnom, all this may be literally and affectingly 
true. We have seen from the predictions of Jeremi- 
ah, that the Lord w^as to make the city of Jerusalem 
as tophet, and the carcases of the Jews were to be 
meat for the beasts of the earth, and that they should 
bury in tophet until there should be no place to bury. 
Besides, we have seen from Josephus, the Jewish his- 
torian, that six hundred thousand of the carcases of 
the Jews were carried out of the city and left unbu- 
ried. It is evident then, if those who worshipped and 
obeyed the Lord, did not go forth and look upon the 
carcases of the men who had transgressed against 
the Lord, it was not for want of opportunity. Suffer 
me, then; to ask, might not the worshippers of the 
Lord, or our Lord's disciples, literally go forth and 
look upon the carcases of the men who had trans- 
gressed against the Lord ? Yea, could they avoid 
seeing them, and looking on them, when they left the 
city and were saved from the dreadful vengeance of 
God which came on the unbelieving part of the nation? 
But it is added, "and they shall be an abhorring 
unto all flesh." This all will allow to be said to the 
same persons, who, in the former part of the passage. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 167 

are said to have transgressed against the Lord. It 
will be allowed that the Jews had transgressed against 
the Lord in a very great degree. They had cruci- 
fied the Lord of glory, persecuted the apostles, tiicy 
pleased not God, and were contrary to all tnen. In 
this respect we see that the passage fully applies to 
them. Let us see how the last part also applies to 
them. ''And they shall be an abhorring unto all 
flesh." The phrase ''all flesh," it could be easily 
shown, is used in Scripture to designate the Gentile 
nations. As one instance, among others which I 
might adduce to prove this, it is said, — " all flesh shall 
see the salvation of God." Now it is literally true 
that the Jews then were, and still are, in their descend- 
ants, an abhorring unto all the Gentile nations. They 
have been, and still are, a by-word, and a reproach^ 
and an afflicted people, among all the nations of the 
earth. How long this is still to continue, God only 
knows. Sure we are, that the Lord is yet to have mercy 
upon Israel ; they are still beloved for the father's 
sake. The deliverer is to come out of Zion, and turn 
away ungodliness from Jacob. 

But let it be noticed, thai it is three times said in 
the passage in Mark, where this passage from the 
prophet is quoted, '^ where their worm dieth not, and 
the fire is not quenched." Let the question be asked, 
"Whose worm shall not die?" We think the answer 
to this must be looked for in the pi'ophet whose words 
our Lord quotes. The answer is, the men who have 
transgressed against the Lord ; their worm shall not 
die, and their fire is not quenched. Should we recur 
to the context of the passage in Mark for an answer 
to this question, the only antecedent to the word iheir^ 
is the persons who should offend Christ's little ones, 
verse 42. This agrees to the answer taken from the 
prophet; for the Jews were the greatest opposers and 
persecutors of Christ*'s disciples. 



1 68 AN INQUIRY INTO 

I have now given a summary view of what I think 
the prophet meant by these words. If just, it must 
be allowed that the passage has no reference to a place 
of punishment in a future state, but to the temporsil 
miseries of the Jews. It is easily seen, then, that as 
face answereth to face in a glass, so does this passage 
to all the others we have considered. Yea, may I 
not with some confidence affirm, that it strongly con- 
firms the views I have advanced about Genenna ? Is 
it then dealing fairly by our Saviour's words in this 
passage to say, that when he quoted them from the 
.prophet, he changed the meaning of them from tem- 
poral punishment to that of eternal misery? I ask, is 
this at all probable, or is this the usual mode of our 
Lord and his apostles, to put such a different sense 
on the passages which they quote from the Old Tes- 
tament? No honest minded man, who has ever read 
the New Testament with attention, will assert that 
this is their practice. But allowing the disciples ac- 
quainted with the words of the prophet, as no doubt 
they were, and supposing them to understand them 
as 1 have done, it is obvious that nothing could be 
said more suitable to the disciples. It was indeed 
profitable for them to enter into the kingdom of God 
with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into 
hell fire, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is 
not quenched; or, in plain language, to perish with 
the rest of the Jews, in the destruction that was to 
come on them in that generation. 

But it is likely to be said, by way of objection — 
How, with any consistency, can it be said that this 
punishment of the Jews was to be di fire that shall never 
he quenched^ and in the preceding text is expressly 
called ^'' everlasting fire 2^"^ To this I shall now pay at- 
tention. As this mode of speaking, or rather as these 
modes of speaking, may be considered as unfavoura- 
ble to my views, I shall give them all due attention.. 



l-HE WORD GEHENNA. 169 

1 approach this part of the passage with great satis- 
faction, because what is considered the most weighty 
objection against my views, will, upon examination, 
be found the strongest confirmation of them. If 1 
cannot show that this very temporal punishment of 
the Jews, to which I have referred hell or Gehenna, 
is called everlasting fire, or punishment; or a fire 
that shall never be quenched, then let all I have said 
fall to the ground. When it is said, however, to be 
everlasting, or a fire that shall never be quenched, I 
mean that these expressions be understood by us in 
the sense in which they are used in the Old Testa- 
fnent, and understood by the Jews. All I ask is, that 
the Scriptures be admitted as the interpreter of the 
meaning and extent of this language. This no rea- 
sonable man will certainly be disposed to deny me. 
This preliminary then being mutually understood and 
agreed on, I proceed. 

It has been shown above, that the word^re, is a fig- 
urative mode of expressing punishment. This we 
think has been proved by an appeal to the Scriptures, 
which will not be gainsayed. All I have then to do 
here, is to show that when the word everlastings or per- 
petual is applied to the word Jire^ or punishment; or 
when ajire that shall never be quenched^ is spol^en of, in 
reference to the Jews, endless duration is not meant. 
Let us then attend to the Scriptures respecting this* 
In Isai. i. 31. we read of a fire that "none shall 
quench." In the same book, chap, xxxiv. 8^ — 1 1* we 
read of a fire that "shall not be quenched, inght 
nor day; the smoke thereof shall go up fgrever.'^ 
We hardly think any sensible person who ever 
read these passages, ever supposed that the fire men- 
tioned was to be of endless duration. In the last, 
the forever mentioned, is explained by the prophet 
thus, — "from generation to generation it shall lie 
waste." But what we are chiefly concerned with, is 
15 



170 AN INQUIRY INTO 

this ; are the Jews ever threatened with everlastingfire 
or punishment^ or with a Jire that shall never be quenched ? 
That (he J are, is too obvious from the following texts 
to be denied. Thus in Jer. vii. 20. it is said — " thus 
saith the Lord God; behold my anger and my fury 
shall be poured out upon this place, upon man, and 
upon beast, and upon the trees of the field, and upon 
the fruit of the ground : and it shall burn^ and shall not 
ie quenched.^'^ 1 would only observe on this passage, 
that here is a fire that shall not be quenched mention- 
ed, it is threatened to the Jews, and it is introduced 
in the very same chapter in which we have seen that 
this prophet made tophet, or Gehenna, an emblem of 
the temporal punishment, which God was to inflict on 
this people. But again ; I quote Jer. xvii. 27. — '^ But if 
ye will not hearken unto me, to hallow the Sabbath 
day, and not to bear a burden, even entering in at the 
gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day: then will I 
kindle a fire in the gates thereof, and it shall devour 
the palaces of Jerusalem, and it shall not be quenvhedJ*^ 
No one can doubt, that this also was spoken of the 
Jew^s, and of temporal punishment. Any one who 
wishes to see similar language in other passages may 
consult the following places. See Jer. iv. 4. and xxi* 
12. and Ezek. xx. 47, 48. It is put beyond all doubt, 
that in the above quoted texts, punishment is threat-- 
ened the Jews under the figure of a fire that shall not 
be quenched. That this punishment referred to the 
punishment inflicted on the Jews in the destruction of 
their city and temple, there can be as little doubt. 
But I ask — did any man in his senses ever think, in 
reading the above passages, that this punishment ex- 
tended to a future state, and was of eternal duration? 
No; I presume the most simple and ignorant person 
that ever read the Bible, never put such a construc- 
tion upon them. Well, give me leave to ask, why 
the very same or similar language used by our Lordj 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 171 

should be thought to mean punishment of endless du- 
i^ation ? 

But perhaps it may be objected, that in all these 
texts, nothing is said about an " everlasting Jire.'^'^ I do 
Bot affirm that there is; but it has been observed 
^above, and the correctness of the remark will not be 
disputed, that " everlasting fire,'' and "the fire that 
»ever shall be quenched,"" mean precisely the same 
:ihing. But I am desirous that every objection should 
be removed, and shall now introduce the following 
passages. In Isai* xxxiii. 14. it is said ; "the sinners 
in Zion are afraid, fearfalness hath surprised the hyp- 
ocrites. Who among us shall dwell with devouring 
fire ? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting 
burnings '?" I am aware, that this passage is often 
-quoted to prove the* everlasting duration of future 
punishment, but in opposition to the scope of the con- 
text. All who candidly examine it, I think must see, 
that the everlasting burnings mentioned, refer not to 
. punishment in a future state, but to temporal punish- 
ment. As such a different view has been taken of 
this text by some, it will be necessary for me to point 
out the meaning of the prophet, and show, that it re- 
fers to the temporal punishment of the Jews, or the 
^damnation of Gehenna^ This I shall do as briefly as 
possible. ' 

1st, By considering the scope of the preceding 
chapter, in connexion with the one in which these 
words are found, the gospel dispensation, or the days 
of the Messiah are referred to. See the context.. 

2d, In the passage it is sufficiently manifest,, that 
the Jews and the hypocritical^ wicked Je7vs are the per- 
sons spoken of in it. They are termed sinners^ and 
sinners in Zion^ and hypocrites. This forcibly calls tQ 
mind the expressions so often used by our Lord 
Matth. xxiii. "wo unto you. Scribes and Pharisees, 
hypocrites.'^ Let it be noticed, that what is called 



172 AN INQUIRY INTQ 

sinners in Zion in the first part of the sentence, ac- 
cording to the Jewish parallelism, is termed hypo- 
crites in the second ; and their being afraid, in the 
first, answers to fearfulness seizing them, in the last. 
No doubt can be entertained that of the Jews the 
prophet was speaking. 

3d, Let us consider what kind of punishment the^ 
prophet, in this passage, is speaking about? It is not 
doubted that he does speak of punishment, for it is 
here alleged that he is speaking of future eternal' pun-- 
ishment. But from what in the passage is this learn- 
ed ? It is learned, we presume, by those who take this 
view of the text, 1st, From the words fire and hum-' 
ings being used. But we have shown above, that the 
word fire, is onrly a figure used in Scripture to describe 
temporal punishment, and is used to describe the tem- 
poral vengeance which came on the Jews, at the de- 
struction of their city and temple. This we think is 
placed beyond all fair debate. 2d, We presume 
eternal misery is supposed to be taught in this pas«^ 
sage also, from the word everlasting being applied to 
the word hurnings. But that the word everlasting is 
applied to temporal punishment, and to this very tem- 
poral punishment of the Jews, is also beyond a doubt. 
This has been partly seen already, and we shall see 
it plainly stated in the next passage. When in the 
passage before us it is said, " who among us shall 
dwell with devouring fire ? Who among us shall dwell* 
with everlasting burnings?'' It is just expressing, un- 
der another figure, what is expressed in the following 
texts : " how can ye escape the damnation of hell V^ 
"who hath warned you to flee from the impending 
vengeance or wrath to come?" That both referred to, 
the same period we think may be seen from the con- 
text. See verses 11, 12, 18, 19. Something, then, 
must be discovered in this text more than the words 
^rcy burnings^ and evj^r lasting^ to prove that eternal 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 173 

misery in a future state is taught in it. fndeed we 
think had attention been paid to the figurative use of 
the word ^re in the Old Testament, and the way in 
which the word ci?g7'te^mg is often used there, much 
perversion of th^ oracles of God might have been 
avoidedo. In confirmation of the view I have given of 
this passage, I may add the following* As in the 
passage, the condition of the unbelieving part of the 
Jewish nation is referred to at the destruction of their 
city and temple, so in the context the condition of our 
I^ord's disciples is described. See verses 15~1 7* 
From verse 20^ to the end of the chapter, the peace 
and prosperity of the Christian church is described. 
We have said enough 4o show that this passage does 
not teach the doctrine of endless punishment in?a fu- 
ture state. We have also given what we conceive to 
be the general meaning of the prophet. Should we 
be mistaken as to its true sens^, yet we think the 
other never can be proved from it. But as we do not 
wish to depend on any text of doubtful meaning in 
support of our views, we shall introduce the follow- 
ing, about which there can be no dispute. 

The passage I refer to, is Jcr. xxiii. 39, 40. " There- 
fore behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you, and I 
will forsake you, and the city that 1 gave you and 
your fathers^ and cast you out of my presence. And 
I will bring an everlasting reproach upon you, and a 
perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten." Thi.s 
passage affords no room for debate. The Jews are 
the persons spoken about : the punishment threatened, 
all will allow, is of a temporal nature : that it refers 
to the punishment which came on the Jews at the de- 
struction of their city and temple, will not be doubt- 
ed : and that it is said to be perpetual and everlast- 
ing, is in as many words- declared. I may just no- 
tice, thc^t the word perpefwa/, in this last passage, is 
the same in the original as the word everlastings and^ 
15^ 



174 AN IKQUIRY l^^ij 

is the same word which is translated everlasting, per- 
petual, and forever, in other passages. AfteF attend- 
ing to these texts we think it will no longer Ibe doubt- 
ed, that the temporal vengeance which eame on the 
Jews at the destruction of their city at temple, is call- 
ed everlastings and also is described URder the figure 
oi fire. But did the Jews understand the words ever- 
lasting or perpetual to mean, in these texts, endless^ 
duration? We presume this will not be affirmed. It 
may be asked, and it is a very proper question to 
ask, — How comes it to pass, that this punishment of 
the Jews, of a temporal nature, is described as ever- 
lasting^ perpetual^ as everlasting fire^ and a fire thaf 
never shall be quenched? To this I answer, that anyone 
who has examined the Scriptures on the subject, 
knows, that olm^ of the Hebrew, aion, and aionion^ of 
the Greek, are often used to express limited duration. 
They are often used to express a shorter or longer 
period of time, as the subjects to which they are ap- 
plied require. I might illustrate this by many exam- 
ples, if it were necessary. But having fully consid- 
ered this in the separate Inquiry, referred to above, 
1 forbear introducing the evidence of it here. The 
recollections of every man who has read the Old 
Testament, are sufficient, in the present case, to ex- 
onerate me from the chargeofsayingany thing but the 
truth. But further, in answer to the above question, I 
would say, that the above punishmentof the Jews, may 
be called perpetual,or everlasting, in the Jewish sense 
of those words ; for it is the longest punishment they 
ever endured as a people. It began at the destruc- 
tion of their city and temple, and has already con- 
tinued for nearly eighteen hundred years. How long 
it is yet to continue, no man, I presume, can, with any 
certainty say. But it is to end. It is not to be ever- 
lasting in the common sense we attach to this word. 
The Jew$ as a nation often suffered punishment at the 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 1 7^ 

hand of God for their sins. The longest punishment 
they ever endured before this, was their seventy 
years' captivity in Babylon. But neither it, nor any 
other, is ever called everlasting, or perpetual, as the 
one they are now enduring. That it is called ever- 
lasting in the Old Testament, is indisputable. That 
this everlasting is not endless duration, we presume 
all will allow. We would then beg leave to ask why 
the word everlasting, used by our Lord in the New, 
must mean endless duration, when he applies it to the 
same people and the same temporal punishment of 
that people ? I appeal to every candid man if this is 
not a very arbitrary mode of interpreting the lan- 
guage of the Bible? 

I have one thing more to observe, and I trust it willi 
be seriously considered. It is this. We find ever- 
lasting applied to punishment, and to temporal pun- 
ishment, when no one will contend that endless dura- 
tion can be meant by the sacred writers. Now, ad- 
mitting that we should be able to find in Scripture the 
word everlasting applied to punishment in a future state 
of existence, still it would be a question if in this case 
it was not also used in a limited sense, as when ap^ 
plied to punishment in this world. But 1 demand of 
those who hold to the doctrine of eternal punishment, 
to produce a single text in which the word everlasting 
is applied to punishment in a future state of existence. 
I seriously request all who hold to this doctrine, can- 
didly to examine this subject. If there be a single 
text in the Bible in which such a doctrine is taught, 
1 shall feel somewhat ashamed if I have been so care- 
less as to overlook it. I am aware that there are 
some texts in which such a thing is said to be taught^ 
and the one we have been considering is of that num- 
ber. We think we have shown that this is not its^ 
meaning. All the others in which the word everlasf-^ 



ild AN INQUIRY INTO 

ihg is applied to punishment, we have considered, and 
we think can show that they teach no such doctrine. 

The Jews who fell in the siege of Jerusalem, and 
the Jews scattered yet among all nations, suffering the 
predicted punishment of their own prophets, may 
with equal propriety as the Sodomites, be said to be 
set forth as an example suffering the vengeance of 
eternal fire. Their punishment is called everlasting, 
it is described under the figure of fire, and they are 
certainly an example to all nations of the direful ef- 
fects of rejecting the Saviour and persisting in unbe* 
lief of mind. But the veil shall be taken from their^ 
hearts, and they shall look yet on him whom their 
fathers pierced and shall mourn. They are cut ofF^. 
and have been so for eighteen hundred years,, but 
they are not cast off forever. God has, not forgotten 
his covenant, but will yet have mercy upon them* 
They have been an ill treated people among the Gen- 
tile nations. No wonder that they continue to^ reject 
Christ, considering the sufferings they have endured 
from those professing the Christian name. One should 
think, that every Christian's-heart would glow with 
affection to a Jewy considering, that through this peo- 
ple God has been pleased to impart to us the Scrip- 
tures, both of the Old and New Testament. 

But to return from this digression : Should the con- 
text of the passage on which we are remarking be 
examined, it will be seen that it affords no evidence, 
showing that Gehenna means a place of endless mis- 
ery for the wickred. We think, if it were necessary^ 
we could glean a few remarks from it in confirmation 
of what we have advanced. But this we shall pass- 
over, and especially as the difficult nature of the two 
last verses of the chapter, would require an extension 
of remark, aside from our present investigation. 

There is one objection, which may have occurred 
to the minds of some from what has been stated on^ 



THE WORD GEHENNA, 1?T 

this passage, taken in connexion with what is said or 
others, of which I shall take some notice here. The 
objection is this.— .^^ You have made the damnation of 
hell to mean the temporal punishment which came on 
the Jews in the destruction of their city and temple 
and yet in this passage you extend this punishment ta 
that which the Jews are yet suffering." In reply to 
this, a remark or two will be sufficient. It is true that 
the valley of Hinnom, or rather tophet, a particular 
part of that valley, was made an emblem of the tem- 
poral vengeance which came on the Jews at the de-- 
struction of their city andtemple* The prophet Jer- 
emiah as we have seen, said that the Lord would make 
the city of Jerusalem aB tophet^&LQ. But observe fur- 
ther, that this punishment was not to end when their 
city and temple were destroyed. They were then 
led away captive into' all nations, and as we have al- 
so seen, God was to make them an everlasting re- 
proach and a perpetual shame. Though the damna- 
tion of hell therefore came on the generation of the 
Jews to whom our Lord addressed hiniself, yet it is 
evident from the Scriptures, and also from the fact 
that the descendants of that generation were to suffer 
a punishment, which in Old Testament language is 
called everlasting or perpetual. We are far from 
thinking that the present punishment of the Jews in- 
cludes no more in it than banishment from their land, 
and the cruelties they have been called to suffer 
among the Gentile nations. Their spiritual miseries 
in being cast out from the presence of the Lord, are 
the worst part of their punishment. This could be 
easily shown. We think also we could show that 
though the Gentiles are never threatened with the 
damnation of hell, or that punishment which came on 
the Jiews, in the destruction of their city and temple, 
yet many of the Gentile nations are partakers of the 
^ame punishment of a spiritual nature, v/hich the Jews 



178 AN INi^UIRY INT® 

at present are enduring. Bat this is not the place for 
entering into details about these things. — I shall close 
my remarks on this passage with the following ob- 
servations. 

1st, As the prophets spoke of the temporal punish- 
ment of the Jews as an everlasting fire, or a fire that 
shall never be quenched, is it surprising that our Lord 
should use the same or similar language about it, in 
the passage we have been considering ? We should 
rather wonder if he had not ; and especially as we 
see that he quoted what the prophet Isaiah had said 
respecting it. I ask, how in this case he could avoid 
using the same or similar language ? 

2d, If the temporal punishment of the Jews is in the 
Old Testament called perpetual and everlastings and yet 
is to end, why ought the same language, borrowed by 
the New Testament writers from the Old, and used in 
speaking of the same people and the same punish- 
ment, be interpreted of endless duration? The Jews 
could not have understood such language or forms of 
speech in this-way. I ask why should we do it? We 
have been accustomed to attach the idea of endless 
duration to the word everlasting,^ and that without 
consulting what sense the Old Testament writers at- 
tached to it. But if we would understand the Scrip- 
tures aright, we must throw ourselves back to the time 
in which they were written, and as far as possible 
enter into the views, and feelings, and habits, of the 
people to whom they were written, and get acquainted 
with their modes of speaking, and the meaning and 
extent of the language they used. 

3d, The language of the Old Testament was famil- 
iar to the New Testament writers. The meaning and 
extent of various words and forms of speech they 
perfectly understood. Without a similar acquaint- 
ance with the Old Testament, it is impossible for us 
ever correctly to understand the New. The reason 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 179 

is obvious. The New Testament writers are con- 
stantly using phraseology borrowed from the Old. 
This is often done when no formal quotation is made. 
They spoke in the words which the Holy Spirit taught 
in the Old. They clothe their ideas in its language. 
To the Old we must then have constant recourse for 
the true meaning of it. In short, the Old Testament 
is the dictionary of the language of the New. Some 
-proof has been given of this already, and more will be 
afforded in the course of our present investigation. 

Matth. X. 28. is the next passage which comes to 
be considered. " And fear not them which kill the 
body, but are not able to kill the soul : but rather fear 
him which is able to destroy both soul and body in 
hell," (Gehenna.) 1 shall here quote the parallel text 
in Luke xii. 4, 5. and consider them together. "And 
I say unto you, my friends, be not afraid of them that 
kill the body,^nd after that have no more that they 
can do : But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear : 
fear him, which aft-er he hath killed, hath power to 
cast into heM, (Gehenna $) yea, I say unto you, fear 
him." It is easily seen that these two texts relate the 
same discourse, and the Teraarks to be made apply to 
both. What is said here was addressed by our Lord 
to his disciples. Jesus calls tbem his friends, and the - 
contexts clearly show that What our Lord here spoke,^ 
had a particular reference, to the circumstances m 
which his disciples were soon to be placed. These 
two passages are supposed, however, to present adif- 
ficu4ty to my views of Geheniia, which demands con- 
sideration. The difficulty stands thus : — " If Geheh- 
na does not mean a place of future misery for the 
wicked, why is it said that the power of man extends 
only to killing the body, and after that he hath no 
more that he can do ; but that after God hath killed 
the body, he hath power to cast into hell or Gehen- 
na?" Before we proceed to make any remarks oa 



180 AN INQUIRY INTO 

these two passages, directly to meet this difficulty,let 
^us compare them. 

Notice, then, that in both, the disciples are dissua- 
ded from the fear of man ; and the fear of God is 
strongly inculcated upon them. This was done in 
anticipation of the trials they were to endure for Jesus' 
namesake. '^1 wiW forewarn you whom ye shall fear.'' 
Notice further, that the power of man, whom they 
were not to fear, extended only to killing the body. 
Matthew expresses it thus : '-'- fear not them which kill 
the body, but are not able to kill the soul." Luke 
thus expresses it : '' be not afraid of them that kill the 
body, and after that have no more that they can do." , 
Observe again, that what Matthew calls, in the first 
part of the verse, to "• kill the body," and to ^' kill the 
soul," in the last part he expresses thus: ^' to destroy 
both soul and body." — Man can kill the body^ but he 
is not able to kill or destroy the soul^ but God is able 
to destroy both soul and body in hell ; or, as Luke ex- 
presses it, — "after he hath killed^ hath power to cast 
into hell or Gehenna.^^ Notice again, that Matthew 
makes a distinction between soul and body, whereas 
Luke does not. He only mentions the body. It seems 
that all that Matthew meant by soul and body^ Luke 
considered as sufficiently expressed by simply mcB- 
tioning the body. Had the word soul in Matthew been 
used to express the immortal part of man^ there is cer- 
tainly a deficiency in Luke's language, in relating this 
discourse of our Lord. But if he by merely men- 
. tioning the body, correctly and fully stated what our 
Lord meant, we ought not to consider the word soul^, 
used by Matthew, as meaning the immortal spirits 
We shall presently attempt to show that the word 
nephish^ of the Hebrew, and the corresponding word, 
psuhe^ of the Greek, here translated soul^ are both often 
used to express mere natural or animal life. They 
, are used to express the life of beasts, as yveW as df 



TftE W^Ri) aEHENNA. iSl 

men. J^ephish^ in the Old Testament, as any one may 
see by consulting an English concordance on the 
words life and soul, occurs in innumerable instances 
where it can mean nothing else but natural life. These 
two words are the common rendering of nephish. The 
same remark applies to psuhe^ also rendered life and 
soul in the New Testament. That the word nephish^ 
translated life and soul in.the Old Testament, as psuhe 
is also in the New, are sometimes used expletively by 
the sacred writers, is obvious from the following quo- 
tation from Pilkington's remarks, p. 94: — '^ For the 
same reason 1^33 should not always be translated soul^ 
though the word soul, by the use of it in the transla- 
tion of the Bible, hath acquired nearly the same lat- 
itude with ^22 in the Hebrew ; which is sometimes 
used expletively, sometimes means life, sometimes the 
whole man, and sometimes is applied to the irrational 
part of the creation. A »few instances of which will 
be sufficient to show the impropriety of the transla- 
tion, where the word soul is mentioned in several pas- 
sages, in which no correct writer would now make 
use of it. Gen. sii. 13. my soul shall live because of 
thee : xix. 20. let me escape thither, and my soul 
shall live. Exod. xii, 16. save that which every soul 
must eat. Lev. v. 2. if a soul touch any unclean thing : 
XX. 11. if the priest buy a soul with his money. Numb. 
xi. 6. but now our soul is dried away: xxxi. 28. one 
soul of five hundred, both of the men, and of the 
beeves, and of the asses, and of the sheep. Psalm 
Ivii. 4. my soulh among lions: cvi. 15. he sent lean- 
ness into their souL-— The writers of the New Testa- 
ment also, finding ^v^yj to be the general translation 
of i2^3j, have used that word both for life and person ^ 
and therefore it is sometimes inrrproperly rendered, a 
soul: and when ^v^yj is, in some places, used to sig- 
nify life, the writers are best justified in their expres- 
=iions. by imputing it to their knowledge of the gen- 
IG 



182 AN INQUIRY INTO 

eral import of the Hebrew word. Matth. ii. 20. they 
are dead which sought the young child's life; vii. 25. 
take no thought for your life. Luke xii. 23. the life 
is more than meat. John x. 15. I lay down my life 
for my sheep. Rom. xiii. 1. let every soul be sub- 
ject to the higher powers. Acts iii. 23. every soul 
that will not hear that prophet. 1 Peter iii. 20. eight 
, souls were saved out of the water. 

^' And, as soul is used expletively, so is body also, in 
several passages of the New Testament; as Rom.vi. 
6. that the body of sin may be destroyed : vii. 4. ye 
are dead to the law by the body of Christ : vii. 24. 
who shall deliver me from the body of this death ; or 
from this body of death? Col. ii. 11. in putting off 
the body of the sins of the flesh. And it may be said 
that body is here a figurative expression ; yet the met- 
aphor is so obscure, as not readily to convey any clear 
idea to us." 

That the word soul is used expletively by Matthew in 
the relation he here gives of our Lord's discourse, 
seems pretty evident from its being omitted by Luke 
mhis account. It is evident that he did not consider 
it necessary to mention the soul in relating what Mat- 
thew did, but considered our Lord's meaning suffi- 
ciently expressed without it. If this be true, no dif- 
ficulty can arise to my views from the use of the word 
soul,) as distinguished from the body, by Matthew in 
this passage. If it is used expletively, or is a mere 
Hebrew idiom, and has no reference to the immortal 
part of man, what argument can be drawn from it to 
prove that the passages teach eternal punishment in 
hell or Gehenna? We think before any thing like 
this is attempted to be drawn from them, it should be 
satisfactorily shown that Gehenna means a place of 
endless misery for the wicked. But what renders it 
still more probable that the word soul is a xn^r ft exple- 
tive in the above passage, is, that though the New Tes- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 183 

lament is written in Greek, yet the idiom of it is He- 
brew. Concerning this, Dr. Campbell's first disser- 
tation ought to be consulted. In his second, referring 
to the first, he says: — '• But whoever would argue in 
this manner, must have forgotten what has been fully 
evinced in the former dissertation, that though the 
words, the inflection, and the construction in the books 
of the New Testament are Greek, the idiom is strict- 
ly Hebraical." That the distinction between soul and 
body in Matthew, is a Hebrew idiom, is confirmed 
from the consideration that it is Matthew, and not 
Luke, who uses this distinction in his account. He is 
thought generally to have written his gospel original- 
ly in Hebrew, and consequently his gospel must par- 
take more of the Hebrew idiom than Luke's. That 
the word soul is used expletively in the Old Testa- 
ment, is evident from the above quotation. It is also 
evident that in the New the word soul simply means 
person^ and that both soul and hody are by the New 
Testament writers sometimes used expletively. That 
this is the case with the word soul in the passage be- 
fore us, is strongly confirmed from comparing Mat- 
thew and Luke a little liirther. What Matthew ex- 
presses by the words, " to destroy both soul and body 
in hell," Luke thus expresses, — ''hath power to cast 
into hell." Here Luke considered himself as expres- 
sing all our Lord meant, and also all that Matthew 
expresses by the words, — " to destroy both soul and 
body in hell." Besides, every one must perceive the 
similarity, or rather the sameness of the phrase, "cast 
into hell," to phraseology used in some of the prece- 
ding passages which have been considered. See 
Mark ix. 45, 47. 

But it may be thought that the distinction between 
soul and body made in this passage, ought to be par- 
ticularly noticed, as it seems not to agree with the 
views I have advanced about the punishment of Ge- 



184 AN INQm^Y INTO 

henna or hell. This we intend now lo do, and would 
observe, that allowing all the remarks already made 
on these two texts to pass for nothing, we shall pro- 
peed to show that they are not only in accordance 
with the views advanced on the above passages, but 
are additional confirmatijon of them. Allowing that 
there is no Hebrew idiom in the case, let us see what 
can be fairly made out from these two texts in favour 
of the doctrine of eternal misery in Gehenna. By 
the body, then, is universally understood the fleshy, 
corruptible part of man, which, after death, returns 
to dust, from whence it originated. This we tJiink 
cannot be questioned. jBy the soul, in distinction 
from the body, is almost as generally understood the 
spirit, or that part of man which survives the body^ 
and at death goes either to heaven or hell, to be hap- 
py or miserable forever^ la this mistaken view of 
the word soul^ originates the apparent difficulty in 
these two passages.— Let us now proceed to a few ad- 
ditional remarks, with a view to obviate the difficulty 
arising from its being said that man has only power to 
kill the body, but is not able to kill the $oul ; but that 
God is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. 

1st, It may just be observed, that it is not said God 
would do this ; it is only said he is able to do it. It is 
said he "isa6?etodestroy both soul and body in hell 5" 
and that ''- he hath power to east into hell." Power or 
ability to do this is one thing, actually to do it is anoth- 
er. I merely notice this for the following reason. 
Admitting it was true that Gehenna was a place of 
eternal misery, and the soul here means the immortal 
spirit, yet nothing positive about eternal misery could 
be fairly made out from this passage. The doctrine 
is rather our own inference, than any positive declar- 
ation. 

2d, Were we to interpret the words fcz'Z/and destroy 
iB a Strict sense, these texts would prove total anni- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 185 

hilation. To kill the soul^ and to destroy the soul, inti- 
mates as certainly the death of the soul, as to kill the 
body, or destroy the body, intimates the extinction of the 
life of the body. If by the word 501^/ we understand 
the spirit, or immortal part of man, and if here God 
positively declares that he will kill the soul, we think 
the doctrine of annihilation is clearly established. 
Understanding Gehenna to mean a place of endless 
misery, it would follow that the disciples are threat- 
ened with annihilation in Gehenna, and the unbeliev- 
ing Jews with endless misery in it, Matth. xxiii. 33. 
But can any man believe this? 

3d, The cause of the difficulty which these texts 
present, arises from the sense we attach to the word 
soul, which is understood to mean the immortal part 
or spirit, which is to exist in a separate state from the 
body, yea, after the body returns to dust. But this 
we think is a great mistake. The original word here 
for soul, is not jonewma, butp5M/ie. This word, as is 
easily shown, is used in instances out of number for 
the mere natural life. In proof of this, 1 shall quote the 
following from Whitby : — on Acts ii. he thus writes : 
*' Verses 26, 27. ' my flesh shall rest in hope ;' ' that 
thou wilt not leave ray soul in hell, neither wilt thou 
suffer thy Holy One to see corruption.' That is, 
saith^Dr. Hammond, 'I am confident that though I 
die, yet shalt thou not leave me so long dead, as that 
my body shall be putrefied ; or thou wilt not leave 
my life in the grave, or in the state of death/ In a 
word, this phrase is by St. Peter interpreted of our 
Lord's resurrection ; for so he speaks, ' Him whom 
you by wicked hands have slain, God hath raised up, 
loosing the bands of death,' verse 23, 24. 'for David 
saith of him, thou wilt not leave my soul in hell,' *• e* 
my life in the grave ; and it is opposed to David's 
continuing in the grave, and in the state of death, 
thus, David is both dead and luried, and his body lies 
16* 



I8G Alf iNi^ymy into 

still in the sepulchre ; he therefore could not say thi» 
of himself; J3Ut being a prophet y and so foreseeing that 
God would raise up Jesus from the dead^ he said this of 
the resurrection of Christy thou milt not leave my soul in 
hell^ or my life in the grave."* 

What we have made the above quotation chiefly for, 
is to show that the word psuhe^ or soul^ goes to Hades, 
or the grave, as well as the body. The Saviour's 
soul was not left there. Or rather, is not the word 
soul used here for the person of our Lord, and the 
meaning simply is, that he was not left in the state of 
the dead ? At any rate, it had no reference to his 
5pn7, which he commended into the hands of his Fa- 
ther. Does not this confirm what has been stated 
already, that the phrase soul and body spoken of in 
this passage, is a mere Hebrew idiom? Or that soul 
is used as an expletive ? If it is not, let it be shown 
that the soul is the same as spirit^ or the immortal part 
of man, and that body and spirit both go to Hades. If 
the psuhe^ soul, is said to go to the grave, and to be left 
there, if the person is not raised again from the dead, 
why may it not with as much propriety be said, that it 
is cast into o^ destroyed in Gehenna ? It has no ref- 
erence to the spirit, or immortal part, unless we be- 
lieve that the spirit goes to the grave at death, and is 
left there until, with the body, it is again raised from 
the dead. — That a distinction is made between the 
psuhe^ soul or life, and the pneuma^ spirit^ we shall now 
proceed to show. 

Paul, in his epistle to the Hebrews, chap. iv. 12. 
makes a distinction betweenj?5t/7ie and jonewma, or soul 
and spirit, "dividing asunder of soul and spirit." 
And in 1 Thess. v. 23. says,— ''And the very God of 
peace sanctify you wholly : and I pray God your 
'^''!?hole spirit (pneuma) and soul, (psuhe) and body, (s(h 

' See Whuby's note on Acis iL 26, 27. 



THE WORD QEHENNA* 187 

ma) be preserved blameless unto the coming of our 
Lord Jesus Christ.^' Here is a distinction not onlj 
between the body and soul, or natural life, but be- 
tween both these, and. the spirit, or immortal part. 
When Stephen prayed, — "Lord Jesus receive my 
spirit," he did not pray,-—" Lord Jesus receive my 
(psuhe) soul," but " Lord Jesus receive my {pnenma) 
spirit." When Jesus said, '^ Father, into thy hands 
1 commend my spirit," it was Bot h\s psuhe^ (soul) but 
his pneuma^ {spirit) which he commended into the 
hands of his Father. See Luke xxiii. 46. And whea 
he bowed his head and gave up the ghost, it w^as not 
his (psiihe) soul, but his (pneuma) spirit, he yielded, 
up. John xiXi. 30. Matih. xxvii. 5.0. . Besides, be- 
lievers are not said to be come to the (pshuhai) souls 
of just men made perfect, but are said to be come to 
the {pneumasi) spirits of just men made perfect. Heb^. 
xii. 23. For more examples, see 1 Peter iii. 19, 
Luke viii. 55. and xxiv. 37, 39. and 1 Cor. v. 5. — 
That a distinction between soul, body and spirit is 
made in Scripture, is too obvious from these passages 
to be denied. Concerning this distinction, see Whitby 
on 1 Thess. v. 23.. 

But that (psuhe) soul, in the passage before us^. 
means the natural life, I shall illustrate by an instance 
or two in point, from the very context of the passages 
before us. Thus in Matth. x. 39. it is said, " he that 
findeth his life,,shall lose it : and he that loseth his 
life for my sake, shall find iu" Here the W'ord for 
life is psuhe^ as in the passages we are considering. 
See also Luke xii. 19, 20» Had this word been trans- 
lated soul instead of life in the last quoted text, it 
would have read thus: — "He that findeth his soul 
shall lose it: and he that loseth his soul for my sake, 
shall find it." Gould this be said of the immortal 
spirit? This no one will. assert. This text, then, not 
Qxtly shows whatp5w/ic, /i/e, or soul^ means, but it ex- 



188 AN INQUIRY INTO 

plains the texts on which we are remarking. They 
then read thus :— .'' Fear not them which kill the body, 
but are not able to kill the life : but rather fear him 
who is able to destroy both life and body in hell." 
But it may be said, is not killing the body killing the 
life ? To this 1 answer, in one sense it is, and in anoth- 
er it is not. It is killing or destroying the life from 
this present world. This men may and can do. But 
their power reaches no further than this. Men may 
kill the body, but they cannot kill the life, so as to 
prevent its reanimating the body ; but God can not 
only kill the body, but prevent its ever again living. 
God's power reaches to this; for he is able to destroy 
the life, or in other words, prevent the person from 
living again. 

But to illustrate this still further, it ought to be duly 
considered, if in Scripture the psuhe or life, is ever 
spoken about as existing separate from the body. 
That pneuma^ spirit^ is thus spoken of we think is ob- 
vious from the above texts. But we do not ^ndpsuhe, 
so mentioned, but the contrary. This we have seen 
from the quotation from Whitby on Acts ii. 27. '' Thou 
wilt not leave my soul (psuhe) in hell." Here his life 
or soul is considered as along with his body in Hades 
or the grave. But observe, that his pneuma^ spirit^ 
which he commended into the hands of his father, is 
never said to be in Hades or in the grave. This is 
not said of him, nor of any other person. It is easily 
seen, then, that there is nothing more strange in speak- 
ing of both life and body being destroyed in hell or 
Gehenna, than there is in saying that our Lord's life 
or soul was not left in Hades or the state of the dead. 
By his soul not being left there is evidently meant 
that he did not continue dead, but on the third day 
lived again. So in the passage under consideration, 
God is said to be able to destroy both body and soul 
in Gehenna or hell, or to prevent the persons from 



•THE WORD GEHENNA. 189 

ever living again. This men could not do; they 
could only kiU the body. The Jews killed the body 
of our Lord by crucifying him. Had God not raised 
him from the dead, his soul or life would have been 
killed. But God raised him from the dead, and con- 
sequently his soul was not killed or left in Hades. 
Now, in the passages before us, where Gt)d is said to 
be able to destroy or kill the soul^ after he hath de- 
stroyed the body, its continuance in this state is all 
that seems to be meant :, for the persons are not spok- 
en of as existing or sufiering after this in soul or body 
in any place. On the contrary, soul and body are 
BOt said to be destroyed in Gehenna. But God is only 
said to be uble or to have power to do this. It is evi- 
dent then, that by soul and body, nothing more is 
meant than what is expressed in some of the other 
passages, by the phrase '^ whole body.'^'^ Besides, we 
think it will be admitted that the punishment here 
mentioned is nothing more than what we have seen 
mentioned in the other passages already considered. 
We have now one remark to make, and we deem 
it conclusive on this subject. Supposing then that 
Gehenna, in the passages under consideration, does 
mean the place of endless misery. Let this be con- 
sidered, for argument's sake, a truth : yea, let it also 
be granted that the punishment of this place is of 
endless duration, I ask what follows from these pas- 
sages ? It only follows that the body, or if you please, 
body and soul, or the life, are destroyed there. It 
does not follow that the pneuma^ spirit^ or immortal 
part, has aay concern in this, punishment. No; for 
we have seen them expresslj^ distinguished ; and in 
these passages not a word is said about its l3©mg in 
Gehenna, or punished there. No: nothing like this 
is to be found in the Bible. We read there of nephish^ 
psuhe^ soulj^or life^ going to Sheol or Hades, and hear 
of its being destroyed in Gehenna ; but do we ever 



1 90 AN INQUIRY INTO 

read of the pneuma^ spirit being in any of those places ? 
No; at death, it returns to God, who gave it. So far 
from the pneuma^ spirit^ being tormented, killed, or de- 
stroyed in Gehenna, or any of those places, it is nev- 
er represented as being in them at all. We call on 
any man to produce an instance from Scripture where 
it is ever said the pnemna^ spirit^ is in Gehenna, or 
killed or destroyed in Gehenna. Though nothing 
like this is to be found in the sacred writings, yet 
people, from the passage we are considering, con- 
clude that the immortal spirit of man is to be killed 
or destroyed in Gehenna. Even in the parable of 
the rich man, it is not said his pneuma^ spirit^ was 
there, or tormented in Hades. No such representa- 
tions are given in the Bible, either about Hades or 
Gehenna. But ought not such representations to be 
found there, if the common belief be the doctrine of 
Scripture? It certainly is the common opinion that the 
spirits of the wicked go to hell, at death. But from 
what part of the Scriptures do we learn this ? If evi- 
dence of such a doctrine is to be found there, let it be 
produced. 

In confirmation of all the above remarks, it may be 
noticed, that the more those texts and their contexts 
are considered, Gehenna in them w^ill appear to have 
the same sense which it has in other places. Indeed, 
it Avould be surprising if in this solitary instance it 
should mean a place of eternal misery, and in all the 
others only temporal punishment ; that it should be 
used in this sense when addressing the disciples, and 
that our Lord should never have used it so when he 
addressed the unbelieving Jews. If it means this in 
these two passages, it would be in the face of facts, 
and other texts, altogether irreconcilable with it. The 
language, we see, agrees with other passages already 
considered, where it is said, "and not that thy whole 
body should be cast into hell." See Matth. v. 29, 30. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 191 

The language of these passages does not accord wiih 
common belief; for it is believed that the soul only 
goes to Gehenna, or the place of endless misery, at 
death, and the body suffers not its punishment until 
the resurrection. But if soul means the spirit, or im- 
mortal part, and Gehenna means a place of endless 
misery, it is a plain case, that, soul and body being 
destroyed, or the whole body being cast into hell, 
both go there together. And if killed or destroyed, 
are they not annihilated? 

But we think, if the contexts of these two passages 
are examined, and the occasion of what is said to the 
disciples considered, it very strongly confirms the 
view taken of them. It also confirms all that is said 
of Gehenna in other passages. Let us glance at this 
for a moment. By comparing Matth. x. and xxiv. 
all may see that many things stated are similar, or 
rather the same. No man can read them without 
seeing this. The sufferings the disciples were to en- 
dure, are similar. The sources from whence they 
should arise, are the same ; and the directions given 
to them^ how they should conduct themselves under 
them, are similar. But there is one thing mentioned 
in both, which deserves particular notice. It is said 
in Matth. x. 22. and xxiv, 13. — " but he that endureth 
to the end shall be saved." What end is meant in 
both passages ? Evidently the end of the Jewish dis- 
pensation, or state, when all the tribulations mention- 
ed, Matth. xxiv, should come on the Jewish nation. 
This evidently shows that in both chapters our Lord's 
discourse related to the same time and events. Dur- 
ing the period which was to elapse before this end 
should come, the disciples were to be employed in 
publishing the gospel. In the two passages before us, 
our Lord warns them against the fear of man, and the 
fear of God is enforced on them in view of their la- 
bours and sufferings. See Matth. x. 26, 27. Luke xii. 



192 AN INQUIRY INTO 

1 — 3. He assures them of the protecting care of 
God, if they feared him, Matth. x. 29,31. Luke xii. 6. 
The sufferings thej were to endure would prove them, 
whether they feared God or man. Matth. x. 31—39. 
Luke \ii. 8, 9. Should any one of them, being in- 
fluenced by the fear of man, apostatize from th^ faith 
of Christ, seeking thereby tt) save his life, (psuhe) he 
should lose it. They should, with the rest of the Jew- 
ish nation, be involved in all the miseries coming on 
that generation. On the contrary, he that did endure 
to the end, should be saved from them, as we have 
seen that they were ; for all the disciples left the city, 
and were saved. We have seen that Gehenna, or the 
valley of Hinnom, was made by the prophet Jeremi- 
ah an emblem of this very punishment coming on the 
Jewish nation. We see then, that in this passage, as 
well as in the preceding text«, that it is when our Lord 
was speaking in reference to the destruction of Jeru- 
salem, that he says any thing about the punishment 
of Gehenna. Can it be accounted for, why our Lord 
never spoke of Gehenna or hell when preaching the 
gospel, but always in discourses which had a refer- 
ence to the calamities at the end of the Jewish state? 
Besides, all he did say about hell, was chiefly spoken 
to his disciples, and neither by him nor any other in- 
spired person, is a word said about it to the Gentiles.* 
These are now all the passages where our Lord 
says any thing about hell or Gehenna. It must, I 
think, be allowed, that the views I have stated, are 
supported by facts, by the context of the places 
where Gehenna occurs, and confirmed by an appeal 
to the Old Testament Scriptures. May 1 not, then, 
be permitted to say, that, if I am in an error, it is very- 
strange this error should have such a body of evi- 

* In my answer to Mr. Sabine, about to be published, these two texts 
are again brought to view and we hope satisfactorily setUed. 



1 



THE WORD GEHENNA, 193 

dence to support it. The sense I have given to Ge- 
henna, is not assumed, but it is settled by divine author- 
ity. Can any man produce such facts and evidence 
in support of Gehenna's being a place of endless mis- 
ery for the wicked ? If this cannot be done, must it 
not be allowed, that either error has more evidence 
to support it than truth, or that 'my view of Gehenna 
is the true one ? At any rate, with such weight of 
evidence pressing on my mind, how could I do other- 
wise than honestly avow the convictions which this 
evidence has produced, without violating my con- 
science and forfeiting all claim to an honest minded 
man ? If indeed I am mistaken in my views of those 
passages, no man can more sincerely wish to see 
where the mistake lies, than I do. If this mistake 
can be pointed out, and if it can be proved that Ge- 
henna, or hell, is a place of endless misery for all the 
wicked, we doubt not but this will be done. It is not 
to be expected, that a doctrine so popular, which has 
been so long believed, and supported by the learning 
and talents of so many good men, will be given up 
without a struggle. If it be true, we earnestly wish 
to see it established by an examination of all the pas- 
sages where Gehenna occurs; and a rational and 
Scriptural account given of the facts which we have 
adduced, and have yet to produce on (he subject. 

The last place in the New Testament in which Ge- 
henna is used, is James iii. 6. " And the tongue is a 
fire, a world of iniquity : so is the tongue among our 
members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth 
on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of 
hell." This is one of the two places, in which Dr. 
Campbell thinks the word Gehenna is used figurative- 
ly. He observes, that it is '^ the intenlion of the wri- 
ter to draw an illustration of the subject from that 
state of perfect wretchedness." It is rather surpris- 
ing that Dr. Campbell should not have noticed, that 
17 



194 AN INQUIRY INTO 

before any illustration could be drawn from Gehen- 
na as a place of endless misery, by a Jew, or any one 
else, it must first be known as such to be a place of 
perfect wretchedness. Let me ask from what source 
could a Jew learn this ? Not from the Old Testa- 
ment ; for Dr. Campbell himself assures us, that Ge- 
henna is not found in the Old Testament in this sense. 
It is not found in the Septuagint, nor even in the Gre- 
cian classics. If James therefore knew all this to be 
true, how could he ever draw such an illustration? 
This was impossible, unless we suppose that James 
learned this doctrine from the Targums, or from our 
Lord's instructions. To suppose the first, is to say 
that James learned this doctrine from a source which 
is not very creditable to it, nor honourable to him. 
To suppose the last, is to make James use Gehenna 
in a sense it never was used by our Lord. This has 
been shown from an examination of all the places in 
which he did use this word. It should be recollected 
that James was a Jew, and that he wrote to believing 
Jews. No place, to a Jew, could afford such a view 
of perfect wretchedness as the valley of Hinnom or 
Gehenna. It is certainly then more rational to think 
that James drew an illustration of his subject from 
this place, well known, than from a place of endless 
misery, which was not known. If we understand this 
text literally, it is at least as difficult to understand 
how the tongue could be set on fire from a place of 
future endless misery, as how it could be set on fire 
from the valley of Hinnom. It is evident that James 
is speaking of the evils arising from an improper use 
of the tongue. What could be more natural, in speak- 
ing of the filthiness and abominations which proceed 
from it, than to draw an illustration from Gehenna or 
the valley of Hinnom, the most abominable place 
known to Jews ? But if Gehenna here is understood 
.figuratively, as Dr. Campbell thinks it ought to be, it 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 195 

requires no further remark from me 5 for surely no 
one will attempt to prove the doctrine of endless mis- 
ery from the mere figurative use of the term Gehenna. 
Such are all the texts in which the word Gehenna 
is used by the New Testament writers, and such are 
the remarks which have occurred to me in my exam- 
ination of them. According to every just rule of 
Scripture interpretation I am acquainted with, I do 
not see how I could have interpreted them different- 
ly. Indeed, to me it is surprising how the doctrine 
of eternal misery was ever founded on any of the 
texts which speak of Gehenna or hell. If I am cor- 
rect, it also affords a striking example how far we 
may be misled, in a proper understanding of the 
Scriptures, by attaching to a single word a sense dif- 
ferent from that given it by the inspired writers. 
How far I am correct, my readers must judge for 
themselves. I hope they will, on the one hand, guard 
against receiving my error, if it be one, and on the 
other, beware of rejecting my view, if true, from 
prejudices of education. Under the influences of these 
prejudices, I began to examine this subject, and have 
been obliged to relinquish my former views of Ge- 
henna, from the force of the evidence 1 have already 
stated, and which 1 have yet to adduce on this sub- 
ject. If my views of Gehenna are, upon examina- 
tion, found correct, it is also a striking proof how far 
we may be milled, in a proper understanding of the 
New Testament, from our inattention to the Old. If 
the word Gehenna in the New, is used in a similar 
sense as in the Old Testament, all the false views we 
have had of the texts in which it occurs in the for- 
mer, have arisen from our inattention to its usage in 
the latter. Whether I am right or wrong in my views 
of Gehenna in the New Testament, no man, we thmk, 
will deny, that there is a degree of plausibility in 
what I kave stated between the Old and New Testa- 



196 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ment usage of this word. It would be foolish in uie 
to think that I have brought forward all that can be 
ulrged for or against this view of Gehenna. The sub- 
ject is brought forward for deliberate and serious 
consideration. If I am wrong in my views, I shall 
have an opporturlity of being better informed. If 
right, I have only performed a duty which I owed to 
mankind. 

Before closing this section, it is proper to notice 
any objections which have occurred against the sense 
given to Gehenna or hell in the passages we have been 
considering. 1 st, One of the most popular objections 
likely to be urged, is, that the sense 1 have given to 
Gehenna is very contrary to the long established ec- 
clesiastical use of this word. This is frankly and ful- 
ly admitted ; but certainly this is no certain evidence 
that my views are incorrect. In the present case, I 
have done no more than what is done by Presbyteri- 
ans, Hopkinsians, Congregationalists, Baptists, Meth- 
odists, yea, by all sects in religion. They all, in their 
own way, take the liberty of thinking that Scripture 
usage of words is, sometimes at leasts different from 
long established ecclesiastical usage of words. That 
the ecclesiastical use of some words is very different 
from the Scripture usage of them, few will deny. 
That they are different, and also how little we ought 
to regard the ecclesiastical use of words when con- 
trary to Scripture usage of them, we here quote the 
authority of Dr. Campbell. He says, p. 416. of his 
dissertations, — '^ ecclesiastical use is no security that 
the word, though it be understood, conveys to us the 
same idea which the original term did to those to 
whom the gospels were first promulgated. In a for- 
mer dissertation, the fullest evidence has been given, 
that in regard to several words, the meaning which 
has been long established by ecclesiastic use, is very 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 19T 

different from that which they have in the writings 
of the New Testament.'^ 

It is easily seen from this quotation, and more ful- 
ly from the other dissertation to which he refers, that 
he did not scruple to disclaim the ecclesiastical use 
of words, if that use did not agree with New Testa- 
ment usage. We have examined the Scripture usage 
of the words Sheol, Hades, Tartarus and Gehenna, 
and if ecclesiastical usage cx)nsiders any of these 
words to mean a place of endless misery, we must say 
that it is not supported by the Bible. But of this our 
readers must judge. If it can be proved that we 
have erred in the sense w^e have given to Gehenna or 
those other words, we shall be glad to see the error 
exposed. 

2d, Another objection closely connected with the 
former, is, that my views of Gehenna are contrary to 
the opinions of almost all the learned in the present 
day, and in the ages past of the Christian Church ; 
yea, contrary to the authors of the Targums and the 
Apocrypha. This may be true, yet my view of Ge- 
henna be the correct and Scriptural one notwithstand- 
ing. I am again supported in this by Dr. Campbell. 
He says, p. 91. of his dissertations, — '^ the opinion of 
Grotius and some learned Rabbis, unsupported by 
either argument or example, nay, in manifest contra- 
diction to both, is here of no weight. Scriptural 
usage alone must decide the question. These com- 
mentators (with all deference to their erudition and 
abilities be it spoken) being comparatively modern, 
cannot be considered as ultimate judges in a question 
depending entirely on an ancient use, whereof all the 
evidences that were remaining in their tinie, remain 
still, and are as open to our examination, as they were 
to theirs. In other points where there may happen 
to be in Scripture an allusion to customs or ceremo- 
nies retained by the Jews, but unknown to us, the case 
17* 



198 AN INQUIRY INTO THE WORD GEHENNA* 

is different. But nothing of this kind is pretended 
here." We have attempted to decide the question, 
what is the meaning of the term Gehenna, by an ap- 
peal to Scripture usage of this word, and we must say 
it is our present opinion that it is not once used, ei- 
ther in the Old or New Testament, to express a place 
of endless misery for the wicked. 

We conclude this section with two brief quotations 
from Mr. Stuart, in his letters to Mr. (now Dr.) Chan- 
ning, which we wish were engraven on every man's 
heart, never to be effaced. In page 14. he says,— 
" the claims of the Bible to be authoritative being 
once admitted, the simple question in respect to it, is, 
what does it teach in regard to any particular pas- 
sage ; what idea did the original writer mean to con- 
vey? When this is ascertained by the legitimate 
rules of interpretation, it is authoritative. This is 
orthodoxy in the highest and best sense of the word ; 
and every thing which is opposed to it, which modi- 
fies it, which fritters its meaning away, is heterodoxyj 
is heresy ; to whatever name or party it is attached. "^ 
He adds, p. 109 — "after all, it is a principle, by 
which, if I have any knowledge of my own heart, I 
desire forever to be guided, to 'call no man master, 
on earth.' I would place the decision of Scripture, 
fairly made out, immeasurably above all human opin- 
ions. I regard the one as the decision of an unerrmg 
God 5 the other as the opinions oi fallible men." 



I 



SECTION IV. 



ADDITIONAL FACTS STATED, PROVING THAT GEHENNA WAk^ 
NOT USED BY THE SACRED WRITERS TO EXPRESS A PLACE- 
OF ENDLESS MISERY. 

The facts which have been stated in a preceding 
part of this investigation, are certainly very singular, 
if it indeed be true that Gehenna of the New Testa- 
ment signifies a place of endless misery for the wick- 
ed. Those I am now to adduce, are to me also 
strange, upon such a view of this subject. Some of 
them have been slightly hinted at in the course of our 
remarks, but deserve a more distinct statement. 

1st, If Gehenna means a place of endless misery for the, 
zvicked^ it is a fact that the apostles never preached it^ ei- 
ther to Jews or Gentiles. The history of the Acts of 
the apostles, contains an account of their preaching 
for thirty years, but not once is the subject oi hell or 
Gehenna torments^ mentioned by them. They were 
commanded to preach the gospel to every creature, 
and they did so, but to no creature under heaven, did 
they ever preach this doctrine.^ No living bein^ did 
they ever threaten with such a punishment. They 
addressed the worst of characters, but to none of 
them did they ever say, " how can ye escape the dam- 
nation of hell?" They did threaten men sometimes 
with punishment, but never with eternal punishment in 
helL Saul said to Elyraas, the sorcerer — "O ! full of 
all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, 
thou enemy of all righteousness,^ wilt thou not cease 



300 ' AN INQUIRY INTO 

to pervert the right ways of the Lord ?" But does he 
threaten this man with the damnation of hell? No; 
he says, " and now behold, the hand of the Lord is 
upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun 
for a season." Acts xiii. 10, 11. In the same chap- 
ter, verses 40, 41. he says, " beware, therefore, lest 
that come upon you which is spoken of in the proph- 
ets. Behold ye despisers, and wonder and perish." 
But did he on this, or any other occasion, ever threat- 
en them with the punishment of hell? No; nothing 
like this is to be found. In this last text the wordper- 
ish occurs, and perhaps some may think that eternal 
punishment is included in it. But it should be ob- 
served, that Paul was here addressing himself to Jews, 
and concerning them our Lord had said — "except ye 
repent, ye shall all likewise perish," referring to the 
temporal destruction which was coming on the Jew- 
ish nation. May I then ask, how this fact is to be ra- 
tionally accounted for, if the apostles did indeed be- 
lieve hell to be a place of endless misery ? Can any 
man suppose they believed this, yet in the course of 
thirty years' preaching, never mentioned it to their 
hearers ? What would we say of a man in these 
days, who should preach thirty years, yet never say 
a word about hell to those whom he addressed? 
Would we not say he was a Universalist? He would 
be an outlaw from orthodoxy. If my veracity in this 
statement is doubted by any persons, let them read 
the book of the Acts of the apostles. In the whole 
of it, whether they preached to Jews or Gentiles, you 
will find that they are all alike silent on the subject 
of hell torments. If they believed such a doctrine, 
let others account for it why they never preached it. 
If preachers nozo took the apostles as their models, we 
should hear no more about hell from them. We 
would then, respectfully ask, from what source did 
preachers learn that they should preach Gehenna or 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 201 

hell to US Gentiles, as a place of endless misery ? To 
what chapter or verse, in any book of the New Tes- 
tament, cah they refer us, where an inspired apostle 
ever did so ? Let every one who preaches this doc- 
trine, consider, if he did not learn this from his cate- 
chism, when a child ; from books he has read, and 
from the preaching he has heard since he became a 
man, and not from his Bibfe? Let him also consider, 
before he condemns my view, whether he has ever 
given this subject a thorough and impartial examina- 
tion. We are all too prone to receive things in relig- 
ion on such kind of authority, and too ready to con- 
demn opinions contrary to our own, before we have 
duly considered the evidence brought in support of 
them. 

To this we are aware that it may be objected— 
"Gehenna was a Jewish figurative mode of speaking 
of future eternal punishment, and had it been used 
by the apostles in preaching to the Gentiles, they 
could not have been understood 5 for the Gentiles 
knew nothing about Gehenna, as a place of future 
punishment." To this I reply, 

1st, That this objection would have some force, if 
it was found that the apostles, in preaching to the Gen- 
tiles, made use of their own modes of speaking about fu- 
ture eternal misery to them. Had they said to the wick- 
ed Gentiles, " how can ye escape the damnation of 
Hades, or Tartarus," we might suppose that this was 
the reason they avoided the use of the term Gehenna. 
But do we find this to be the true state of the case ? 
We certainly do not. No such conclusion, we con- 
ceive, therefore, can be drawn that the apostles said 
nothing to the Gentiles co irerning Gehenna, because 
it was a Jewish figure which they could not under- 
stand. But, 

2d, Admitting that the term Gehenna was a mode 
of speaking of eternal misery the Gentiles did not un- 



202 AN INQUIRY INTO 

derstand, they could have explained it to them, as 
they have done other things of seemingly less import- 
ance. Let any one read John's gospel, and he will 
see that he explains Jewish names and customs ; some 
examples of which we have given in another place. 
But, 

3d, The above objection takes it for granted that the 
Gentiles were unacquainted with the term Gehenna. 
But ought it to be so? Is there not as good reason to 
think that the heathen, in their intercourse with the 
Jews, should imbibe their notions of Gehenna, as that 
the Jews should imbibe the heathen notions concern- 
ing Hades or Tartarus, in their intercourse with them ? 
Their mutual intercourse would produce a mutual in- 
terchange of opinions. This being the case, if the 
spirit of God recognized either the Jewish notions of 
Gehenna, or the Pagan notions of Hades, as truth, w^e 
might expect that the apostles would have preached 
this doctrine to both Jew^s and Gentiles. Had both 
been recognized, we might expect Hades and Gehen- 
na to be used indiscriminately by the apostles, in 
speaking of future eternal misery. But this is not 
done by them, if we may judge of their preaching 
from what is contained in the New Testament. If 
they believed both to be true, they would have spoken 
at least of Gehenna to Jews, and of Hades to Gen- 
tiles, as a place of eternal punishment in a future state. 

4th, But this objection takes it for granted, that the 
Jews in our Lord's day, did use the term Gehenna to 
signify a place of endless misery, and that this was 
its exclusive sense. That this could not be its exclusive 
sense we have proved ; for in reading the Old Testa* 
ment Scriptures, they could not understand it so; or, 
if they did, they must have perverted them to an ex- 
tent I am unwilling to believe, even of the Jews. The 
objector must then prove, that the Jews, in our Lord's 
day, did use the term Gehenna, exclusively to express 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 203 

a place of endless misery. When he has done this^ 
upon the authority of the Targums, he must also 
prove that this sense of the term was sanctioned by 
the New Testament writers. Besides, he ought to ac- 
count for it, if the reason why the apostles never said 
any thing to the Gentiles, concerning Gehenna, arose 
from this term's not being understood by them, why 
they never even speak to the Jews of the damnation of 
hell? According to this objection, it was understood 
by them to mean a place of endless misery." The 
apostles did preach to the Jews as well as the Gen- 
tiles, but they did not even name it to them. Will any 
man affirm, then, that the apostles of our Lord under- 
stood him to mean, by Gehenna, a place of endless 
misery, yet never preached it, to either Jews or Gen- 
tiles, in the whole course of their ministry? Whatev- 
er excuse we may make for them, in regard to the 
Gentiles not understanding the term Gehenna, none 
can be made for them on this ground respecting the 
Jews. 

2d, Another fact is^ that the salvation revealed by the 
gospel^ is never spoken of as a salvation from hell or end- 
less misery. J^o such salvation was ever promised or 
predicted in the Old Testament^ and no such salvation was 
ever preached by Christ or his apostles. Our Lord re- 
ceived the name Jesus, because he should save his 
people from their sins. But I do not find that he receiv- 
ed this name, or any other because he should save 
them from helL Our Lord and his apostles, in preach- 
ing, proposed by it to turn men from darkness to light ; 
from the power of satan unto God ; from idols to serve 
the living God; from the course of this world; and 
from all sin to holiness ; but where do we ever read 
of their saving them from hell ? No such salvation was 
preached by our Lord. In all the texts where he 
speaks of hell, he was not preaching the gospel, but 
addressing the Jews about the temporal calamities 



204 AN INQUIRY INTO 

coming on them as a people. In no instance did he 
ever exhort men to bring forth fruits worthy of re- 
pentance, because they were exposed to hell torments 
in a future state. So far from this, in nine instances 
out of eleven, nvhere Gehenna is used by him, he was 
addressing his disciples. It is of no use to observe, 
that his apostles never made use of the punishment 
of hell to induce men to repentance, for they do not 
once name it in all their wridngs. James is the only 
exception, who mentions hell once, and that only in a 
figurative sense. Nothino: is said in our Lord''s com- 
mission to his apostles about hell, and as little is said 
of it by them in their execution of it. To Jew and 
Gentile, bond and free, they are all silent about it. It 
is never mentioned by them to any persons, on any 
occasion, or in any connexion, or on any subject. 
This silence of the apostles respecting hell, could not 
be because the people in those days were all so very 
good, that they did not need to be saved from hell. 
No ; the whole world lay in wickedness around them, 
yet not a word is said of the torments of hell to alarm 
their fears, and to turn them from sin to God. No 
calculations were then made, as in our day, of the 
number who were daily and hourly going down to 
hell to suffer eternal misery. No ; nor was such a 
variety of schemes adopted by the apostles to raise 
funds to save men from hell, as we see resorted to in 
our day. As they expressed no alarms about the 
vast crowds going to hell, so we do not find them ex- 
press their joy because any were saved from it. They 
were deeply grieved to see men living in sin, and their 
spirit was stirred within them to see whole cities given 
to idolatry; but they never assert that all such were 
on the road to hell. They had great joy to see men 
walking in the truth, and often congratulated them on 
account of their being saved from their former course 
of life, but not a syllable escapes them, that such per- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 2QS 

sons had been saved from endless misery. You search 
the Scriptures in vain to find a single instance where 
the apostles make any attempt to work on the fears 
and feelings of men by giving terrific descriptions of 
hell, or the horrors and howlings of the damned. As 
they never held up the torment of hell to make men 
Christians, so we never find them using it as an argu- 
ment to induce Christians to love and to good works. 
The latter are often reminded that they formerly 
were idolaters, working all uncleanness with greedi- 
ness, to induce them to holiness ; but where do we 
find a word said of their being saved from hell, as 
any inducement to it?— In view of these things, per- 
mit me to ask, how are we to account for them, if 
they believed hell to be a place of eternal torment for 
the wicked ? Is it possible that they believed this, 
yet preserved such a dead silence on the subject? 
This silence is an indisputable fact. To account for 
it, is above my comprehension. 

Perhaps it may be said,— though none are said to 
be saved from hell, yet they are said to be delivered 
from the wrath to come, and to be saved from wrath 
through Jesus. All this is true; but it is nowhere 
said that this wrath to come was in a future state, or 
of eternal duration, which is the point to be proved to 
be conclusive on this subject. I think I can show that 
the expression, "wrath to come," does not refer to a 
future state. To do it here, would be too great a di- 
gression from our present subject. Nor is this my 
business, to show that it does not refer to a future 
state of existence. It is the business of those who 
say that it does, to prove this, and not to take things 
for granted at this rate, on a subject of such deep im- 
portance, as the one in question, to the human race. 
But this, and other things, are all taken for grantt?d, 
as if they ought not, nor could not be doubted. The 
evidence I have stated, and have yet to produce, has 
18 



206 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Jed me to doubt that Gehenna is a place of future 
eternal misery. If it is, we shall be happy to see it 
proved. 

3d, Supposing that hell is a place of endless misery for 
the wicked^ it will not be an easy matter to vindicate either 
the character of our Lord or of his apostles. It will not 
be easy to vindicate their character for fidelity to God^ or 
to the souls of men. It js certain our Lord was faith- 
ful to him who appointed him. The apostles w^ere 
also faithful, in declaring the whole counsel of God- 
But can all this be true, if they knew that hell was a 
place of eternal misery, and that all the world stood 
exposed to it, yet said nothing to them about it? It 
is true, the Saviour mentions hell nine times to his dis- 
ciples, and twice to the unbelieving Jews. Neither 
he nor his apostles ever use the word in speaking to 
the Gentiles. Now I ask, is this like being faithful ? 
Is this being half so faithful as most preachers are in 
our day? We think every candid man must say no ; 
it is rather being very unfaithful, if they indeed be- 
lieved this doctrine as it is commonly received among 
us. Let it then be accounted for, how preaching hell 
as a place of endless misery now is so much a duty, 
^since it was not done by the apostles, nor even by our 
Lord himself. The fidelity of preachers in these days, 
both to God and the souls of men, in preaching the 
doctrine of endless misery in hell, far exceeds that of 
the apostles or of Christ, the Saviour. But how is 
their compassion to the souls of men to be vindicated^ tf^y 
hell is meant a place of endless misery ? The case stands 
thus. The Saviour, it is thought, knew^ hell to be a 
place of endless torment, but we have seen how he 
acted? He had compassion on the multitude, when 
they needed to be fed, and wrought a miracle to sup- 
ply their wants. The compassion of his heart made 
him weep over Jerusalem, in anticipating the tempo- 
ral calamities coming upon its inhabitants, and faith- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 207 

fully to warn them of their danger. In reference to 
those temporal calamities, he once said to the unbe- 
lieving Jews, — "how can ye escape the damnation of 
hell?" In reference to the same calamities, he uses 
the word hell in addressing his disciples. But he 
sheds no tears, he gives no warnings, he works no 
miracles to save, when it is said he knew hell to be a 
place of endless misery to all the wicked. But can 
any man think so of the Son of God, the Saviour of 
the world ? I ask; can any man believe, that he 
whose heart was wrung with anguish, at foreseeing 
temporal evils to be suffered by men, and who could 
shed tears at the grave of Lazarus, was so callous, so 
devoid of all compassion, as never to warn men of 
endless misery in hell ? But supposing we should admit, 
that in all tne places where our Lord mentions hell, 
such a place of misery is meant. In this case, our 
Lord indeed had a little compassion for the Jews. 
But neither he, nor his apostles^ had any for the Gen- 
tiles. The apostles did shed tears, but not a sigh is 
heaved, nor a tear falls from their eyes, on account 
of men's being in danger of hell torments. On this 
subject their bowels of compassion were entirely shut 
up, for they say not a word about hell to any man. — 
Either then we must allow these men to be devoid of 
compassion, or admit that they did not know that hell 
was a place of eternal torment for the wicked. It is 
a plain case, that preachers in our day far exceed the 
Lord and his apostles in compassion for the souls of 
men. How solemnly, and seriously, and frequently 
do we hear preachers warn men of hell torments? 
What deep compassion they pretend, at least, to feel 
for the multitudes of poor souls on the brink of hell, 
and going down to suffer its torments forever. In 
what loud and frightful tones do we hear them de- 
scribe the horrors of this place ? Their compassion- 
ate hearts they describe as bleeding, because men 



208 AN INQUIRY INTO 

will thus rush down to hell in crowds. But where do 
we find such things in our Lord's, or in his apostles' 
preaching? Were they to return lo the earth, and 
preach just as they did, every pulpit would be shut 
against them, and they represented as unfaithful and 
unfeeling men. But kow is their zeal for tht gloi^ of 
God^ and the salvation of mtn^ to he vindicated^ if they 
knew hell to be a place of endless misery ? Our Lord 
said, '' the zeal of thine house hath eaten me up." 
But surely, as we have seen, it was not spent in preach- 
ing, and warning men against endless misery in hell. 
The apostles had also zeal, great zeal, and zeal ac- 
cording to knowledge, but they never spent any of it 
in preaching such a doctrine. The topic of hell tor- 
ments, on which so much zeal is spent in the present 
day, is one which they never introduced to their hear- 
ers. This topic, hardly forgotten in a single dis- 
course, and so powerful in inducing all classes of so- 
ciety to contribute, seems to have been unknown in 
the days of the apostles*. This theme, so effectual in 
rousing the sleeping energies of mankind, and of ex- 
hausting human ingenuity ifi devising means to save 
them from hell, was either unknown to them, or they 
did not know how to avail themselves of it. It was 
never used by them to procure themselves a morsel 
of bread, or in any way to do good to others. The 
most profound silence is maintained by the apostles 
on this subject. 

I do not blame the zeal of any in the present day, 
in urging the doctrine of hell torments on all mankind. 
If the doctrine be true, I contend that their zeal is 
not ardent enough. Indeed, if true, no one can easi- 
ly go to excess in his zeal. So far from condemning 
tjie greatest zeal which can be manifested, I have 
some doubts if a great many of such persons believe 
their own doctrine. If they did, how could they live 
in such wealth, and splendour as they do, yet do so 



THE WORD GEHENNA* 



209 



little to save men from hell torments ? I have ser^ 
ous doubts if even many of the preachers most ac- 
tive and zealous in rousing the public to give money 
to save the heathen from hell, believe this dcj^ctrine* 
If they did, would they live at home in comparaftiye 
€ase and affluence, and send raw, inexperienced 
youths abroad to encounter the difficulties and dan- 
gers of such a work ? No ; they vv^ould rush into the 
hottest place of the battle, and suffer every privation 
in such a conflict. One thing is certain, that ift ;sa^V 
ing others from hell, they seem determined to do it 
with as little self-denial and personal risk as possible. 
How often does it happen that all the zeal for the 
doctrine of hell torments evaporates in the pulpit, and 
nothing more is heard of it until the preacher returns 
to it again* In the common intercourse of life, he 
speaks and acts to the same people, as if all his threat- 
enings from the pulpit, of eternal torment in hell^ 
were not true. Yea, some of the very persons whom 
in the pulpit he threatens with the torments of hell, 
are his most intimate companions through the week. 
He visits in their families, he feasts at their tables, 
and his salary is chiefly paid by them ; but not a 
word escapes him, perhaps the whole week, in warn- 
ing them of their danger in being every moment ex- 
posed to endless misery. Can such a man be said 
truly to believe this doctrine?; We must be allowed 
to doubt it, so long as such unfaithfulness is so appa- 
rent. I do not blame any for great zeal, if this doc- 
trine be true. No; I only wish some one would ac- 
count for it, if they can, why the apostles never men- 
tioned hell as a place of torment, nor availed them- 
selves of this doctrine, to stimulate their own zeal, or 
rouse that of others, in attempting to save men from 
such a punishment. 1 wish it to be accounted for, 
why this topic was never urged on Christians to .in« 
djuce liberality, to assist in saving the heathen from 
18* 



t210 AN INQUIRY INTO 

hell, or on the heathen to induce them to turn from 
their idols to the living God. 1 wish it to be account- 
ed for, if the apostles knew of the doctrine of hell 
torments, why they forgot to mention it either to Jews 
or to Gentiles. Either they did not believe the doc- 
trine, or, if they did, how is their fidelity, compassion, 
and zeal to be defended ? Who would undertake to 
defend the fidelity, compassion and zeal of any preach- 
er in our day, who, if this doctrine was believed by 
him, should never mention Gehenna as a place of end- 
less misery for all who died in ignorance and unbe- 
lief concerning the Saviour? Instead of defending 
him, all sects, Herod and Pilate like, would be made 
friends for once, to put such a preacher down by eYC^- 
ry means in their powder. 

4th, The Old Testament is often quoted in the New^ 
hut it is an indisputable fact^ that though quoted hy our 
Lord when speaking about hell or Gehenna^ it is not quoted 
to show that hell was a place of eternal misery^ hut in ref- 
erence to temporal punishment. Indeed, it was impossi- 
ble for our Lord or his apostles to quote the Old Tes- 
tament to prove that hell w^as such a place of misery ; 
for it is acknowledged by Dr. Campbell and others, 
that in this sense Gehenna or hell does not occur 
there. They could not make a quotation in proof of 
this from it, for it did not afford them any thing to 
quote. Well, permit me to ask, why our Lord did 
quote the Old Testament, and quoted it in the very 
texts in which hell or Gehenna is spoken of? In Mark 
ix. considered above, our Lord expressly quotes a 
passage from Isaiah, w^hen speaking concerning hell 
to his disciples. In other places he seems to allude 
to others. Had our Lord then meant to use Gehen- 
na or hell in ci different sense from that in the Old 
Testament, was it not calculated to mislead his hear* 
ers thus to quote it ? Is it rational and proper to sup- 
pose, that our Lord quoted texts from the Old Testa- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 211 

nient, which speak altogether of a temporal punish- 
ment, when he intended that what he said about Ge- 
henna or hell should be understood of eternal punish- 
ment? I think this would be imputing to our Lord a 
want of correctness of judgment, and even of com- 
mon propriety, which we seldom have occasion to im- 
pute to our fellow men. The man would be looked 
on as insane, or something worse, v/ ho in the present 
day, if he intended to prove the doctrine of hell tor- 
ments, should quote from the Old Testament the pas- 
sage about the three children thrown into the fiery 
furnace, as proof of it. But this is just what our 
Lord did, as we have seen, if Gehenna in the New 
Testament means the place of eternal misery. See 
on Matth. xxiii. 33. and Mark ix. 42. considered in 
the preceding section. 

5:th,. If there he a place of endless misery for the wick- 
ed^ is it not another remarkable fact that the- Hebrew y 
Greeks and English languages originally had no name for 
this place? We have seen from Dr. Campbell, that 
Gehenna does not occur in this sense in the Old Tes* 
tament ; that it is not a Greek word; that it is not 
found in the Septuagint, nor in the Grecian classics. 
It is originally ''a compound of the two Hebrew 
words gia enm^ ge hinnom^ the valley of Hinnom, a 
place near Jerusalem, of which we hear first in the 
book of Joshua xv. 8." Let us also see what he says 
about our English word helL Speaking of Hades^ in 
his 6th dissertation, he says :■ — ^' To this the word Jielli 
in its primitive signification perfectly corresponded. 
For, at first it denoted only what was secret or con- 
cealed. This word is found with little variation of 
form, and precisely in the same meaning, in all the 
Teutonic dialects. But though our word hell^ in its 
original signification, was more adapted to express the 
sense of Hades than of Gehenna, it is not so now.. 
When we speak as Christians, we always express by 



i212 AN INQUIRY INTO 

it, the place of the punishment of the wicked after 
the general judgment, as opposed to heaven, the place 
of the reward of the righteous." — It is very evident 
from this, that the word hell did not originally signi- 
fy a place of endless misery. In confirmation of what 
Dr. Campbell says, I shall quote the following from 
Parkhurst on the Vv^ord Hades. He says, — " our En- 
glish or rather Saxon word /le//, in its original signifi- 
cation, (though it is now understood in^a more limited 
sense) exactly answers to the word Hades^ and denotes 
a concealed or unseen place ; and this sense of the 
Avord is still retained in the eastern.) and especially in 
the western counties of England ; to /le/eover a thing is 
id cover it." — The correctness of these statements are 
above suspicion ; for, the fidelity of these men as 
'^vriters, has led them to say things at variance with 
their professed creed as Christians. It is very evi- 
dent, if they are to be believed, that our English, or 
Saxon w^ord hell, did not originally signify a place of 
endless misery for the wicked, but like Hades or She- 
ol signified the unseen or concealed place ; and that 
it has this meaning in some of the counties in Eng- 
land to this day. It is then a very plain case, that 
for this place of endless misery the Hebrew, Greek, 
and English languages did not originally furnish a 
name. We have then to ask, had the inspired wri- 
ters any idea of such a place of misery? If they had, 
it is evident they wanted a name for it to express it 
to others. If they have not expressed it by any word 
to others, how does any man know that they enter- 
tained such an idea? We have seen persons use 
words to which they had no -distinct ideas. And we 
have also seen persons having ideas, which they could 
not very easily express in appropriate language to 
others. But we believe it is a singular case, that the 
Bible is said to reveal a place of endless misery, yet 
tfec inspired writers had no name for it. It is surely 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 213 

then a very proper question to be asked, who changed 
the words Gehenna and hell from their original sig- 
nification, to mean a place of endless misery ? We 
shall see in the next section that the writers of the 
Targums and the Apocrypha, are appealed to for this 
change, that this change was gradually produced, and 
finally Gehenna was used exclusively to mean such a 
place of misery. Who gave this new sense to the 
word hell, or whether its change of sense was gradu- 
al or sudden, 1 can afford no information. It is enough 
for us to know, that this was not its original significa- 
tion; and this fact is attested by Dr. Campbell, Park- 
hurst and others, all firm believers in the doctrine of 
hell torments. 

After these statements from such eminent critics 
relative to Gehenna and our English word hell, not 
originally signifying a place of endless misery it is 
very natural to put something like the following ques- 
tions. 1st, Were these words changed from their 
original signification by divine authority or was it on 
the authority of men? None of the above authors 
assert or even insinuate that such a change in the 
meaning of these words was made by any of the in- 
spired writers, or by God's authority. It has never 
been noticed in the course of our reading that any 
one ventured to prove this or even asserted it. As to 
the word Gehenna, we have seen that Dr. Campbell 
says it came gradually to be used in this sense and at 
length came to be confined to it. 2d, By whom, and 
at what period of time, did this change in the sense 
of these two words take place ? Here we are left to 
conjecture; for neither Dr. Campbell, nor any other 
writer, of which we have any knowledge, gives us 
any information about this. That a change in the 
sense of these two words has taken place, is certain, 
but when, or where, or by whom it was done, no in- 
formation is afforded us. 3d, By what name was this 



214 AN INQUIRY INTO 

place of endless iiiisery called, before the Jews called 
it by the name Gehenna? And what was its name in 
the English, or rather Saxon language, before the 
word hell was changed from its original signification 
and applied to it? Or was it without a name before 
these words were altered in sense to suit it? 4th, If 
it had a name before Gehenna and hell v^ere changed 
in sense, and applied to it, why was it laid aside? 
And what were the reasons which induced men to 
make such an alteration on their own authority? Why 
were they not content, to speak of this place as 
the ScripturesHeach, if indeed they do reveal such a 
place of endless misery? 5th, If Gehenna and hell 
have undergone such a change of sense, on mere hu- 
man authority, may we not, and ought we not, to 
change them, back again to their original signification^ 
on the same authority ? — Such are a few of the ques- 
tions which may be put, relative to the change in the 
sense of these two words. We leave our readers to 
determine how they are to be answered. The last is 
easily answered, but all the others, we think must re- 
main unanswered. 

6 th, Another fact ^ deserving our consideration^ is,, that 
Christians^ when they speak of hell ^ adopt the phraseology 
used about Sheol and Hades^ rather than Gehenna, though 
it is contended that Gehenna is the word which signifies 
hell^ or the place of endless misery* 1 shall explain what 
I mean. For example, it is evident from an inspec- 
tion of the passages, in which Sheol^ Hades and Ge- 
henna occur, that Gehenna, for depth, is never con- 
trasted with heaven for height, like Sheol and Hades. 
Nor, do we read of persons going down to Gehenna, 
of the depths of Gehenna, or of the lowest Gehenna. 
Neither do we read of the gates of Gehenna, nor of 
the pains of Gehenna. All these things are said of 
Sheol and Hades, as we have seen in a former part 
of this Inquiry. Besides, no representations are 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 215 

given of Gehenna, as of Sheol and Hades, as if all 
the dead, or, even the wicked were there. No persons 
are ever represented as alive in Gehenna, as speaking 
out of Gehenna, or as tormented in its flames. It is 
never, like Sheol and Hades, represented as a dark, 
concealed place, under the earth. No : it is represent- 
ed as on a level, or nearly so, with the persons ad- 
dressed concerning it. All these, and other modes 
of speaking, are used about Sheol and Hades, but 
never in speaking of Gehenna ; and show a remarka- 
ble difference in the Scripture representations of 
those two places. Such a marked, uniform difierence 
must strike every man's mind with great force, who 
takes the trouble to examine this subject. In all the 
twelve places, in which Gehenna occurs in the New 
Testament, we have seen that what I have stated is 
strictly correct. In them we read of the damnation 
of Gehenna or hell: persons are there said to be in 
danger of it; they are threatened with going into it, 
or being cast into it ; but do we ever read of any per- 
son's being in it, and lifting up his eyes in the torments 
of this place? Now, comparing all thes€ different 
forms of speech, about Sheol and Hades, with those 
of Gehenna, the difference is not only manifest, but 
very great. 

Let us now compare these statements with the way 
in which Christians speak about hell, or the place of 
future punishment. It is evident, that they seldom, 
if ever, use the language employed in the Bible, about 
Gehenna, but generally that used in speaking of 
Sheol and Hades. Thus, for example, when a preach- 
er describes hell to his hearers, and threatens the 
wicked with the punishment of it, he speaks of it as a 
deep place, as the lowest hell, and as a place to which 
they are going down ; and speaks of some already 
there, lifting up their eyes in its torments. All this 
we have seen, is said of Sheol and Hades, but never 



216 AN INQUIRY INTO 

of hell, or Gehenna, the place of eternal punishment. 
Permit me then to ask, why this is done? For what 
reason is the Scripture language about Gehenna laid 
aside, and that of Sheol and Hades substituted in its 
place; when it is allowed on all sides, that neither 
Sheol nor Hades means a place of endless misery? 
It must be confessed, that this is, at least, handling 
the word of God ignorantly, if not deceitfully; and 
under the mask of Scripture phraseology, imposing 
on the ignorance and credulity of mankind. If such 
persons will have Gehenna to be the place of endless 
misery, let them use the language of Scripture about 
it, and not use the language, allowed to have no ref- 
erence to such a subject. We cannot help thinking 
that the reason of this change of phraseology is from 
necessity. It would be contrary to fact, and even 
common belief, to speak to people of hell, in the lan- 
guage used about Gehenna. To tell them that their 
whole body should be cast into hell would not do. A 
case of this kind was never known. It is believed only, 
that the souls of the wicked go to hell at death, and 
the body returns to the dust, and not until the resur- 
rection, do the soul and body go there together. This 
change of the language from Gehenna to that of Sheol 
and Hades, is therefore necessary, to be in unison 
with the common belief on this subject. If men w^ere 
obliged to confine themselves to the language used in 
Scripture about Gehenna, when they speak of hell, 
it would, probably, lead them t6 see, that all was not 
correctly understood respecting it. I may even add 
here, that this change of language is not altogether 
in agreement with the popular ideas entertained of 
hell. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus, is 
not in unison with common belief. No man believes 
that the body is tormented, at least, till after the res- 
urrection of the dead ; but how often do preachers 
represent the body after death as in hell, lifting up its 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 217 

eyes there, and as tormented in its flames? But fond- 
ness for a popular sentiment, often blinds our eyes to 
the contradictions and absurdity of our language in 
speaking about it. 

7th, Another fact^ deserving some notice is^ that the 
punishment of hell or Gehenna^ is never once spoken of as 
*a punishment of the spirit^ separate from the body in an in- 
termediate state^ nor as a punishment for both body and 
spirit^ after the resurrection of the dead* As to the first 
part of this statement, let the texts in which Gehenna 
occurs, be ever so rigidly examuied, they do not af- 
ford a particle of evidence, that Gehenna is an inter- 
mediate place of punishment for the spirit after the 
death of the body. The text, and we believe the 
only text, quoted to prove this intermediate place of 
punishment, is, the parable of the rich man and Laz- 
arus. But supposing this account to be literally un- 
derstood, it should be remembered, that the rich man 
was not in Gehenna, or hell, but in Hades. Now il 
is a point, settled beyond all dispute, that Hades is 
not Gehenna or hell. Admitting then, that Hades is 
an intermediate place of punishment for the separate 
spirit, Gehenna or hell must be given up as such a 
place. But every one knows that it is the common 
belief, that hell or Gehenna, is the place of suffering 
in the intermediate state, Ask any common Christian^ 
who believes in the doctrine of eternal misery, if he 
thinks this punishment before and after the resurrec- 
tion, are in two different places; he would stare at 
you as an heretic. He has always believed as he 
has been taught by his parents^ his catechism^ and his 
sect^ that there is only one hell for all the wicked. It 
is high time that common Christians^ in distinction from 
learned Christians^ should be told that this is very far 
from being the true state of the case; as they would 
soon see, if the learned only spoke their minds freely 
on this subject. Dr. Campbell has dared to speak of 
19 



218 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Gehenna and Hades as two places of punishment foF 
the wicked, and it is somewhat surprising that ortho- 
dox Christians have not. before now, denounced him 
as an heretic. 

But the punishment of hell or Gehenna, says Dr* 
Campbell and others, comes after the judgment, for 
Hades is to be destroyed. But let the texts which 
speak of Gehenna, be again examined, and as little 
is said about its being a place of punishment after the 
resurrection, as before it. No ; we never find it once 
mentioned, in connexion with the resurrection of the 
dead ; but, as we have seen, always in connexion 
with the temporal miseries coming on the Jews. 
Without making myself liable to the charge of arro- 
gance, I think 1 may challenge the whole world to 
produce a single text, which speaks of Gehenna or 
hell, either as an intermediate place of punishment 
for the spirit, or for both body and spirit after 
the resurrection of the dead. All the passages, we 
think, have been shown to have a totally different 
meaning. What has led people into such mistaken 
ideas, on this subject, is, their confounding Sheol, 
Hades and Gehenna together, as one place, and sup- 
posing that the word hell, by which all these words 
are translated, means the future place of punishment 
for the wicked. The endless duration of this pun- 
ishment has been believed from Mark ix. 43, 44. con- 
sidered above, and from a few^ more passages, in 
which the word everlasting is used and appli^ed to 
punishment. It has been shown from a considera- 
tion of the passages which speak of Gehenna or hell, 
that it referred to the punishment of the Jews, and we 
think no man can dispute that we have proved 
that this punishment was called an everlasting pun- 
ishment. But where do we ever read of an everlast- 
ing punishment in hell for soul and body, eitherinan 
intermediate state, or after the resurrection? Let 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 219 

something like proof of this be produced. It is very 
true, that we read in books, and hear in sermons, of 
an eternal hell, and of the howlings of the damried, 
and of infants of a span long being in that place. 
But in the name of common humanity, and in vindi- 
cation of the character of God, we demand in what 
part of the Bible such statements are to be found. 
Do the Scriptures ever give such statements as these? , 
They certainty do not. Is it not, then, daring pre- 
sumption in any man to speak thus? Shall we neyer 
have done in attempting to supply what we deem 
God's deficiences ? 

Dr. Campbell, and w^e presume all critics, object 
to the doctrine, that Hades is to be a place of punish- 
ment after the resurrection. It is evident from Scrip- 
ture, that it is to be destroyed, and be no more. But 
why should this be objected to, and why should it be 
contended for, that Gehenna is to be a place of pun- 
ishment after this period, and of eternal duration? 
Certainly as little is said about Gehenna, as about 
Hades, being a place of eternal punishment after the 
resurrection. From no text in which Gehenna is 
mentioned, could this be even inferred. Gehenna 
is never spoken of as a place of punishment after the 
resurrection of the dead ; nor is it ever mentioned in 
connexion with this subject. 

8th, Closely connected with the last fact^ is another^ 
that the learned seem to believe in two places of future pun- 
4shment^ and the common people only in one. Dr. Camp- 
bell, we have seen, declares that Gehenna is the place 
of eternal punishment for all the wicked. He also 
thinks that Hades is an intermediate place of punish- 
ment until the resurrection ; but that this place is 
then to be destroyed. If it be true then, that Hades 
is one place of punishment, and Gehenna another, it 
is beyond all doubt that there are two places of future 
punishment, the one temporary, and the other to be 



220 AN INQUIRY INTO 

eternal in its duration ; the one before, and the other 
after the resurrection of the dead. The first, a pun- 
ishment for the soul, separate from the body, until 
the resurrection, and the other after, for both soul 
and body forever. This is indisputable, unless it can 
be proved, that Hades and Gehenna ^re only two 
names for the same place; or, which is much the 
same, that Hades is a part of Gehenna, or Gehenna a 
part of Hades. But no man who has paid the slight- 
est attention to the passages in which these two words 
occur, can for a moment think so. So far from this^ 
no two places could be more distinctly marked, as two 
separate places. The various modes of speaking 
about them clearly decide this, which we have noticed 
already. We think it has been shown that none of 
the passages which speak of Gehenna, support the 
idea, that this is a place of endless misery for the 
wicked. If such a place exists in the universe of 
God, and is revealed to us in the Bible, it must be 
under some other name than that of Gehenna or hell. 
Neither Sheol nor Hades can be this place; for ad- 
iuitting it to be a place of punishment in the interme- 
diate state, it is agreed that it is to be destroyed, 
therefore can not be of endless duration. If such a 
place of misery is taught us under any other name in 
the Bible, I am willing to consider it. But this is not 
pretended, I believe, by the most zealous friends of 
the doctrine of endless misery. 

The common opinion of the unlearnedis, that there 
is but one place of future misery, and this place they 
call hell, whether this word be the translation of 
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna. They always 
speak about it as one place of punishment, and con- 
sider this punishment as of endless duration. The 
same hell to which the spirits of the wicked are sent 
at death, is the hell to which they send all the wicked 
forever. If this be a nxistaken notion of the vulgar. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 221 

it is certain most orthodox preachers do not attempt 
to correct it, for what they say about hell tends to 
confirm them in this opinion. They always speak 
about one hell as certainly as about one God; nor do 
they, in preaching, take any notice of the distinction 
so clearly marked in Scripture, between Hades and 
Gehenna. 

9th, Another fact is^ that though we read of the sea^ 
death and Hudes^ delivering up the dead which are in 
fhem^ yet we never read of Gehenna delivering up any 
thing dead or alive. Now, let us suppose, that at death 
the body goes to Hades, the grave, or state of the 
dead, and the spirit goes to-Gehenna or hell, to suffer 
punishment until the resurrection of the bodj'-. If 
this commonly received doctrine be true, is it not as 
rational to think that we should read in Scripture of 
Gehenna or hell delivering up the spirits of the wick- 
ed at the resurrection^ as that Hades or the grave 
should deliver up their bodies. In order to a reunion 
at this period, it is just as necessary that the spirits 
should come forth from the one place, as their bodies 
from the other. But nothing like this is to be found 
in the Bible. Does not this seem to intimate, that 
Gehenna or hell is not a place of misery for the 
wicked? 

If heaven be, as is generally believed the place of 
happiness after death, for the spirits of the righteous, 
and Gehenna or hell be the place of punishment for 
the spirits of the wicked, must not the spirits of the 
last, in order to a reunion with their bodies, come 
forth from hell as certainly as the first from heaven? 
But I do not find that at this period a word is said 
about hell, or any spirits coming forth from it. But 
how is this accounted for, if the generally received 
doctrine be correct ? The only possible way to ac- 
count for this, is suggested by Dr. Campbell — that 
Gehenna is not the place of punishment for the wicked, 
19* 



222 AN INQUIRY INTO 

until after the resurrection. But this, we think^wiR 
not bear examination. In all the texts which speak 
about Gehenna, nothing is said of the resurrection of 
the dead. No; nothing that has the least appear- 
ance of this. It will not be disputed, that w^hen our 
Lord spoke to the unbelieving Jews, and to his dis- 
ciples, of Gehenna, he was speaking on a very dif- 
ferent subject, the temporal punishment coming on 
the Jewish nation. Why introduce Gehenna on a 
subject like this, if it be true that the punishment of 
Gehenna or hell, is that suticred by the wicked after 
the resurrection ? If it is, let it be accounted for,. 
why it is not once introduced by the inspired writers, 
w^hen speaking of the resurrection. It is natural to 
think that it w^ould be always spoken of in connex- 
ion with it. We find Hades follows death, and these 
two are spoken of as connected. But do we ever find 
it said that Gehenna follows the resurrection of the 
dead; or that there is any connexion between these 
two things ? No ; this is not, in the most distant way, 
hinted at. Let any one read all the passages where 
this subject is treated of, and he will find that not a 
word is said by the sacred writers concerning Ge- 
henna or hell. In 1 Cor. xv. the fullest account is 
given of the resurrection, of any place in the Bible; 
but neither the punishment of hell, nor any other pun- 
ishment is spoken of in connexion with it. We should 
think it, then, a duty incumbent on those who believe 
that the punishment of hell succeeds the resurrection 
of the dead, to show, that the spirit of God speaks 
of it in such a connexion. If what is said about this 
be true, this ought to be its uniform connexion. But 
no man will assert that this is the case, who has paid 
any attention to the subject. 

10th, Another important fact^ deserving our notice^ isy 
that none of the original zvords translated in the common 
^^ersion^ eicrnal^ everlastings and forever^ are once aon- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 223 

nected with Gehenna^ or hell. No ; though we often 
hear preachers, in our day, speak of an eternal hell, 
such language never was used by any inspired wri- 
ter. The phrase "everlasting fire,'' occurs in the Bi- 
ble, and this has been shown, before, to be the same 
as " everlasting punishment," and the " fire that shall 
never be quenched." But we have seen that none of 
these expressions refer to a place in a future state, 
called Gehenna, or hell; or that the punishment re- 
ferred to is endless in its duration. But an eternal hell 
is often heard of, from the pulpit, and perhaps many 
believe it to be a Scripture expression. This, with 
many other terrific expressions, which are the chief 
ornaments of many modern sermons, and often utter-- 
ed without much feelingby the preacher, are not found 
in the Bible. They are bugbears of his own crea- 
ting, which no man who regards the Scriptures, and. 
has considered this subject, will be frightened at. 
Children, and ignorant, weak, nervous people, may, 
and indeed often are, powerfully wrought upon, by 
the terrific descriptions which are given of helL And, 
after this is effected to a great extent, it is called a 
reformation. But is this the work of the Spirit of 
God among these people ?: If it be, I demand that 
some part of the New Testament be produced, show- 
ing that similar reformations were effected by terrific 
descriptions of hell under the ministry of Christ 
or his apostles. Did they paint, in glowing colours, 
the horrors of the damned in hell to make men Chris- 
tians? No man will say so. Not a word was said, 
by them about hell, or an eternal hell to the people.. 
All such language is coined at the mint of modern 
divinity, and may be a very good plan for increasing 
a sect, but this is a very different thing from making 
men Christians.. When many of these people g^t 
over their fright, they return like the dog to his vom.- 



224 AN INQUIRY INTO 

it, and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in 
the mire. 

I am fully aware that to this it will be objected — is 
not everlasting life and everlasting punishment con- 
trasted in Matth. XXV. 46. and some other places? 
Yes, it is freely admitted, but we think we can show 
that this contrast is not between heaven as a place of 
eternal blessedness, and Gehenna as a place of end- 
less punishment, as is generally believed. The di- 
gression would be too long from our present subject 
to show thi& here, and therefore I have reserved this, 
and all the other texts where everlasting is applied to 
punishment, to a separate Inquiry. 

II th. In the common language of most Christians^ you 
find heaven as the place of blessedness for the righteous^ 
spoken of in contrast with Gehenna or helU the place of 
endless misery for the wicked* Whatever they say about 
the former they have a counterpart in speaking of the lat* 
ter. But when we look into the Bible^ zoe do not find such 
a counterpart* I shall illustrate what I mean by an 
example or two. In the Bible we find persons ex- 
pressing their hopes of going to heaven; but do we 
ever read of one expressing his fears of going to Ge- 
henna or hell ? We indeed find persons speaking fa- 
miliarly of Sheol and Hades, and expressing both 
their fears and feelings in regard to this place ; but 
do we ever read of one who expresses his fears or 
feelings about going to Gehenna ? No : not an in- 
stance of this is found in Scripture. Again : we read 
of an inheritance incorruptible and undefiled and that 
fadeth not away, reserved in heaven ; but do we ever 
read of endless punishment reserved for any one in 
hell or Gehenna ? Nothing like this is mentioned by 
the sacred writers. Again : Paul, we are told, was 
caught up to the third heaven, into paradise, and 
heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a 
man to utter: but do we ever find an v one that was 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 225 

sent to hell or Gehenna and there heard or saw any- 
thing ? No : but why is it not as natural to expect, 
that some one should be sent to hear the unutterable 
misery of the one place, as the unutterable blessed- 
ness of the other ? The one would only be a proper 
counterpart to the other. But again ; we have some 
instances of persons mentioned in Scripture, who 
were taken up from this earth unto God and into heav- 
en. Such were Enoch and Elijah. These persons, 
eminent for goodness, were distinguished from the 
rest of mankind, by this signal manifestation of the 
divine favour. — But do you ever find one individual^ 
abandoned for wickedness, on whom God displayed 
his signal vengeance, by sending him bodily to hell 
or Gehenna ? We indeed read of Korah and his 
company who went down quick into the pit; but we 
have shown previously, that this pit was not Gehen- 
na or hell, but only the grave or state of the dead* 
But further: we read Rev. vii. 14 — 17. of some be- 
fore the throne of God, who serve him day and night 
in his temple, and from whose eyes all tears are wipe#. 
away. But do we ever read of any in hell or Ge- 
henna, tormented by the devil, and from whose eyes 
tears shall never be wiped away ; but who must dwell 
there forever in unutterable anguish ? No : these and 
other things of a similar kind which might be named^ 
are never mentioned in Scripture. We have heard 
and read enough of this in sermons, but sermons are 
not the Bible. Again : Moses and Elias made their 
appearance on the mount at our Lord's transfigura- 
tion ; but do we find any of the wicked characters 
mentioned in Scripture ever making their appearance 
from hell ? We have heard idle stories of wicked 
persons coming from hell to warn others and describ- 
ing the awful misery of that place. But is any thing 
like this stated in the Scriptures ? All know that such 
ridiculous fables are not found there. 



226 ' AN INQUIRY INTO 

1 2th, It is common with orthodox preachers to represent 
Hades or hell as the place of future torment for the wick" 
ed. They often avail themselves of the parable of the rich 
man and Lazarus^ in preaching on this subject. But ob- 
serve that they also often speak of persons being there tor" 
mented by the devil and his angels. Indeed it is common' 
to speak of devils and wicked men as being in the same 
place of punishment. But how they came by their in- 
formation I know not. It is a fact that is indisputa- 
ble, that whatever the Scriptures mean by the devil 
and his angels, they are not once represented as ia 
Hades, or tormenting any persons there. Even Dr. 
Campbell, though he considers Hades as an interme- 
diate place of punishment, says— ^" That Gehenna is 
employed in the New Testament to denote the place 
of future punishment, prepared for the devil and his 
angels, is indisputable." See the whole of this para- 
graph quoted p. 92. If the devil and his angels are 
in this place, which Dr. Campbell says was prepared 
for them, they are not then in Hades, the intermedi- 
ate place of punishment for the wicked. We ask then 
how it can be said with truth, that the devil and his 
angels are the tormentors of the wicked in Hades ? 
But we believe some have thought that though Ge- 
henna is the place prepared for the devil and his an- 
gels, they are not yet sent there, nor will they be un- 
til the day of judgment, when they and all the wick- 
ed are to go there together, to suffer its punishment 
forever. If this be true, that the devil and his an- 
gels are not in Gehenna and are never said to be in 
Hades, it seems they, for the present, are not ifi ei- 
ther place of punishment, whilst wicked men are all 
sent to Hades to be punished from death until the 
resurrection. Besides, it is certain that such preach- 
ers who represent the devil and his angels as the tor- 
mentors of wicked men in Hades, greatly misrepre- 
sent them, a thing which ought not to be done to real 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 227 

devils. But how often has it been heard from the pul- 
pit and pubh'shed to the world, that wicked men at 
death go to hell to be the companions of devils and 
damned spirits forever? And has not books been put 
into the hands of children describing in words and rep- 
resenting to their eyes in cuts^ the devil tossing about 
the wicked there with pitchforks? The truth is, 
whether my views of Gehenna be right or wrong, it 
is evident the common opinions entertained on the 
subject cannot all be true. 

The evidence which has already been stated, prov- 
ing that Gehenna does not signify a place of endless 
^misery for the wicked, we deem sufficient. But there 
are yet some things, which ought not to be passed 
over, of a circumstantial nature, which very much 
confirm this evidence. 

1st, Why did not John in his gospel mention Ge- 
henna, and why did he omit all the discourses record- 
ed by the other evangelists, in which our Lord spoke 
of Gehenna? It has been noticed already, that John 
wrote his gospel for the use of the Gentiles. This is 
generally admitted. This being the case, it may be 
thought there was no occasion to say any thing about 
Gehenna to the Gentiles. If our Lord as I have sta- 
ted, meant by Gehenna the temporal punishment com- 
ing on the Jews, this is readily admitted ; but if the 
damnation of hell was an eternal punishment for all 
the wicked, whether Jews or Gentiles, how could John 
omit all mention of it? How can it ever be ration- 
ally accounted for, that he believed the damnation of 
Iiell was an eternal punishment, yet say nothing about 
it to them ? Was it a matter of more importance to 
them, to be told, that Messias being interpreted, sig- 
nifies the Christ, or, that there was at Jerusalem a 
pool in the Hebrew language called Bethesda having 
five porches ? Or that the water pots, chap. ii. con- 
tained two or three firkins apiece ? Can any man 



228 AN INQUIRY INTO 

think, that if John believed Gehenna a place of end- 
less misery, he would be silent about it, yet mention 
to his Gentile readers these things, comparatively of 
small importance ? But why did John omit all these 
discourses in which our Lord spoke of Gehenna? A 
very good reason can be assigned for this, and it shows, 
in what light John viewed the discourses of our Lord, 
alluded to. It was after the destruction of Jerusalem 
he wrote his gospel. Whitby in his preface to the 
gospel of John thus writes : " The fathers of the 
fourth and fifth centuries do all agree, that he wrote 
it either in that Isle (Patmos) or after his return from 
it; when he was ninety years old^ saith Epiphanius; 
when he was an hundred, saith Chrysostom. So that 
according to the account of all these ecclesiastical 
writers, John must have writ this gospel a considera- 
ble time after the destruction of Jerusalem." Sup- 
posing then, that by the damnation of hell our Lord 
referred to the temporal punishment coming on the 
Jews, we see a very good reason, why John says 
nothing about Gehenna, yea, omits all our Lord's dis- 
courses in which it is mentioned. The event was past- 
To have related those discourses, would have been 
to deliver predictions after they were fulfilled, and 
warning men of evils to be endured, after they had 
been suffered. John's conduct is not only then excu- 
sable, but highly proper, in saying nothing about Ge- 
henna or hell, and in omitting all these discourses. 
Does not this very omission strongly confirm the view 
which I have given of the passages, which speak of 
Gehenna? — And is not this omission irreconcilable 
with the common ideas entertained on this subject? 

2d, Why does not Luke mention Gehenna in his 
history of the Acts of the apostles ? This is the more 
surprising, as he mentions it in his gospel. On my 
view of Gehenna, this can be rationally accounted 
for, but on the common view, is altogether unaccount* 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 229 

aMe. In his gospel, he relates our Lord's discourses 
to the Jews, in which he spoke to them concerning 
Gehenna, in the punishment of which they were alone 
concerned. But in his history of the Acts of the 
apostles, he gives us an account of the preaching of* 
the gospel, and its success among the Gentiles, who 
were not concerned in the punishment of Gehenna, 
and therefore had no need to have it mentioned to 
them. If my view of Gehenna be correct, we see 
that there was no occasion for him to say a word about 
it.— .But if he believed, and if the apostles believed, 
the history of whose preaching he relates, that hell 
was a place of endless misery, on what grounds are 
Ave to account for his entire silence on this subject ? 
If it was a punishment in common to both Jews and 
Gentiles, who died wicked, will it ever be satisfacto- 
rily accounted for, that the apostles did not preach it 
to the Gentile nations ? If they ever preached this 
doctrine, it is certain, that Luke omits all mention of 
it in his history. To say they did preach it, is only 
a gratuitous assertion, and in fact impeaches Luke as 
a faithful historian. What historian: would omit men- 
tioning the doctrine of universal salvation as preach- 
ed by the Universalists, if he undertook to write the 
history of their preaching for thirty years? 

But if it was right in the apostles, to say nothing in 
their preaching of Gehenna or hell, it must be right 
in us, for certainly they are the best models to copy 
after. Supposing then, that all the preachers among 
the Gentile nations, should, in imitation of the apos- 
tles, say nothing about hell to their hearers, who could 
blame them? They could urge the example of the 
apostles in their defence. Here they might take their 
stand, and bid defiance to the whole world to prove 
the contrary. 

3d, Why did the apostles never mention any thing 
about hell in any of their epistles to the churches? 
20 



^30 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Not one of them, James excepted, ever introduces it. 
The reason of this is equally obvious. The epistles, 
for the most part, were written to Gentile believers, 
who were not concerned in the punishment of hell or 
Gehenna. James wrote to believing Jews, and we 
have seen, that he once, in a figurative sense uses this 
word. Now can any one suppose, that if the Gen- 
tiles had been exposed to hell or endless punishment, 
that the apostles never would, in any of their epistles, 
have reminded those to whom they wrote, that they 
had been saved from it? They are often reminded 
that they were idolaters, and v/icked, before they be- 
lieved the gospel, and that they had been saved from 
such things : not a word is said, intimating that any 
of them had ever been saved from Gehenna or hell. 
From the consideration of their being saved, they are 
often exhorted to love and good works ; but never 
from the consideration of their being saved from hell 
or endless misery. As it is never said that they were 
once exposed to such a punishment^ so they are never re- 
minded that they were now delivered from it. No self- 
complaisant remarks are ever made, that they were 
now safe from the torments of hell, nor any whining 
complaints, that their friends^ and neighbours, yea, the 
whole unbelieving Gentile world were every moment 
exposed to this punishment. We find the apostles 
and primitive Christians, expressing the most heart- 
felt gratitude, that they had been saved from this 
present evil world 5 that'^they were translated from the 
kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of God's dear 
son; and using all proper means that their fellow men 
might believe the gospel, and enjoy like blessings. 
The New Testament abounds with evidence of this. 
But do we ever find them saying that they had been 
saved from hell or Gehenna ? Or intimating that their 
exertions in diffusing the gospel, was for the purpose 
jsf saving the heathen from the everlasting torments 



THE WORD GEHENNA. £31" 

of this place? We leave it with every candid man 
to say, if the apostles and first Christians believed 
just as people do now about hell or Gehenna, if they 
could have been thus silent on such a deeply inter- 
esting subject. 

Further : no instance is left on record where an un- 
believer, or a backslider was told, as now they fre- 
quently are, that they had sinned away their day of 
grace, and that everlasting torments in hell would be 
their unavoidable fate. No: nor is an instance or 
any thing like it recorded, of a person being driven 
to distraction, from anticipation of the horrors of hell, 
produced by apostolic preaching. No example is 
given in Scripture, of a person ending his days by su- 
icide, to get rid of his present terrors of hell torments. 
Some instances of suicide are recorded : see the cases 
of Ahithopel, Judas, &c. but do we find a single 
hint dropped that it was the terrors of hell torments 
which drove them to this? Even of Judas it is not 
said that he went to hell 5 which, we think ought to 
teach some persons modesty and caution, who. in the 
heat of their zeal, affirm that he did go to this place 
of punishment. If such persons had the Bible to 
make, they would express many things very differ- 
ently from what it has pleased God to do, in the rev- 
elation of his will to mankind. 

It will be allowed, that from the gospel of John, the 
Acts of the apostles, and the epistles, we learn what 
were the doctrines taught to the Gentiles. But can 
we learn from them that the doctrine of eternal pun- 
ishment in hell was one of these doctrines ? Certain- 
ly we cannot. Supposing that such writings were 
published in our day, omitting all mention of hell or 
its endless punishment, would we not say tliat they 
did not teach the doctrine of hell torments? We do 
not deem it a conclusive argument, that hell is not a 
place of endless misery, because these writers do not 



232 AN INQUIRY INTO 

mention. it in all their writings : it is however calcu- 
lated to lead us to reflection, and candidly to consid- 
er, that when in so large a portion of the New Testa- 
ment no mention is made of hell torments, whether 
we correctly understand those other parts where this 
doctrine is supposed to be taught. We have not sta- 
ted this as an argument conclusive in itself. But we 
should think, that if none of the other New Testa- 
ment writers teach this doctrine, the argument is con- 
clusive. We have seen, that it is a conceded point, 
that Gehenna does not occur in the Old Testament in 
the sense of a place of eternal misery. If, then, none 
of the New Testament writers teach it, is not their si- 
lence proof, that no such doctrine was known or taught 
by them ? It is well known, that the silence of Scrip-^ 
lure about any doctrine, in other cases, is deemed a 
conclusive argument against it. And why not in the 
case before us? It would be dangerous to admit the 
contrary. If it was admitted, then no fault could be 
found with the doctrine of purgatory and many other 
things about which the Bible is silent. 

We often come to learn what doctrines are held by 
persons from the accusations of their enemies. Should 
v/e bring the doctrine before us to this test, we find 
some additional confirmation that endless misery in 
hell was not taught by our Lord, nor his apostles. 

1st, Let us inquire what accusations the Jews 
brought against the Saviour? The Jews accused him 
of many things : such as his being an enemy to Cae- 
sar ; as in league with Beelzebub, and as a blasphe- 
mer. On his trial, Pilate said to him, "behold how 
many things they witness against thee." The princi- 
pal of these were, that he called himself the Son of 
God, and said he was able to destroy their temple. 
But I ask, did the Jews on any occasion, ever accuse 
him of having threatened them with endless misery 
in hell? No: bad as the Jews were, they never ac- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 233 

cused him of any such thing. If he ever had done 
it, would they have failed to bring this forward against 
him? None of the Jews had any idea of going to 
hell. Would they, then, have endured to be told so, 
without a murmur or complaint against him ? Would 
this have formed no ground of accusation? No man 
can believe this, who has read the four gospels, and 
has noticed the unwearied opposition of the Jews 
against the Saviour. 

2d, Let us see what accusations were brought 
against his disciples, and apostles. They also were 
accused of being enemies to Caesar. But passing over 
other accusations, we shall fix on what Stephen was 
accused of, as a fair specimen of what they were all 
charged with. — '' This man ceaseth not to speak blas- 
phemous words against this holy place, and the law : 
for we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Naza- 
reth shall destroy this place, and shall change the 
customs which Moses delivered us." Enemies as the 
Jews v/ere to the disciples of our Lord, did they even 
so much as insinuate the charge against them, that 
they ever threatened them v/ith endless torm.ents in 
hell ? They say, that Stephen said — '' Jesus of Naz- 
areth shall destroy this place," but did they ever say, 
that either Jesus, or Stephen said, that he would de- 
stroy them with everlasting misery in Gehenna or 
hell? No: let me advocate for once the cause of the 
Jews, they never brought such a charge against Christ 
or any of his followers. On this occasion, let it be 
remembered, that the accusers of Stephen were false 
witnesses, procured for the very purpose of finding 
him guilty. Now, does any man think, or can he 
suppose that these false witnesses after saying Ste- 
phen said, — ''This Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy 
this place," would have forgotten to add, such an im- 
portant charge " And he also said, that he would de- 
stroy us and all the wicked in hell to endless dura- 
20* 



'^234 AN iN^UlRY INTO 

tion ?" — The man, who can believe this to be a mere 
oversight in these witnesses, in not mentioning such a 
material charge against Stephen, is prepared to be- 
lieve any thing. But they could not bring such an 
accusation against him or any of the first preachers, 
for as we have seen, none of them ever used the word 
Gehenna or hell in preaching either to Jews or Gen- 
tiles. All v/ho had ever heard them preach, could 
have been called as witnesses to prove, that it was a 
false accusation. Such a false charge, would have 
been in face of public opinion to the contrarj^. 

But let us see what were the accusations v/hich the 
Gentiles brought against the followers of Christ. They 
accused them of turning the world upside down ; of 
turning away much people, saying that '' they were 
no gods which w^ere made with hands." In conse- 
quence of this they were accounted Atheists, enemies 
to the gods, and deserving to be abhorred of men* 
Now, give me leave to ask, was the charge ever 
brought against themr in any shape, by any person, 
that they ever threatened men with endless punish- 
ment in hell or Gehenna? No: all the Jesuitical in- 
genuity in the world, cannot find a word said, which 
has such an appearance. Had the apostles then ev- 
er threatened the Gentiles with endless punishment 
in hell would they have failed to bring this as an ac- 
cusation against them ? Should it be objected here 
"have you not yourself shown in chap. i. sect. 3. 
that the heathen nations all believed in the doctrine 
of future punishment, and that the Jews learned this 
doctrine from their intercourse w^ith them ; how then 
could the heathen be offended with the apostles for 
teaching one of the tenets of their religion ?" To this 
I answer, that the heathen believed in a future pun- 
ishment i^ Hades, but observe that the apostles nei- 
ther taught such a punishment in Hades^ nor in Gehen- 
.na. This is a fact we think beyond all fair discus- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 235' 

sion. Not a' word did any of the apostles say to the 
heathen about punishment in either of these places. 
If they had preached future punishment in Gehenna 
to them, they might have said, we have heard of fu- 
ture punishment in Hades^ but why preach this new 
doctrine, a punishment in Gehenna ? Their not preach- 
ing a punishment in Hades, shows that they did not 
believe this heathen notion 5 and the Gentiles never 
accusing the apostles of threatening them with end- 
less punishment in Gehenna, is a confirmation that no 
such doctrine was taught to the heathen world. 

Another circumstance corroborative of the views I 
have advanced concerning Gehenna, is the following. 
On my views of Gehenna the conduct of our Lord 
and his apostles is just what might be expected, but 
if by Gehenna is understood a place of endless mis- 
ery, it is strange and unaccountable. . What I refer 
to will be best se€n by, 

1st, Considering our Lord's conduct. We have 
seen, from a consideration of all the passages in which 
he speaks of Gehenna, that nine times out of twelve, 
all he says concerning it, was addressed to his disci- 
ples. In only one instance did he ever say to the 
unbelieving Jews— '• how can ye escape the damna- 
tion of hell?" Matth. xxiii. 33. Now, notice, that at 
verses 38, 39. he adds, "behold your house is left 
unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not 
see me henceforth till ye shall say, blessed is he that 
Cometh in the name of the Lord." After this he 
never said a word to them about the damnation of 
hell. Now let it be supposed, that by this expres- 
sion our Lord meant endless misery in a future state, 
- — I ask, is it possible our Lord should only mention 
this once ? I ask again, can it be believed, that he 
who said on the cross, — ^^" Father, forgive them for 
they know not what they do," should have ceased, 
but with his dying breath, to warn these men, that 



236 AN INQUIRY INTO 

such a place of endless misery awaited them ? I ask 
once more, is it possible, that he, who, when he be- 
held the city, '' wept over it," on account of temporal 
calamities in which it was soon to be involved, should 
shed no tears, in anticipating the endless misery of 
its wicked inhabitants? On the supposition that Ge- 
henna is such a place, it must, I think, be allowed that 
our Lord's conduct is strange and unaccountable. 
But on my views of the damnation or punishment of 
hell our Lord's conduct excites no surprise ; all is ra- 
tional and what the circumstances of the case war- 
rants us to expect.^ They had rejected their prom- 
ised Messiah, the measure of their iniquity they were 
soon to fill up, and they could not escape the damna- 
tion of hell. But let it be satisfactorily accounted 
for, why our Lord never afterwards said any thing 
to them of the damnation of hell, if thereby he meant 
endless misery in the world to come. 

2d, The conduct of his apostles. It is easily seen 
that their conduct is in perfect agreement w^ith that of 
their master before them. He never said a word 
about hell or Gehenna to the Gentiles. Neither do 
they. He never said a word more concerning Ge- 
henna to the unbelieving Jews after sayingr—" how 
can ye escape the damnation of hell?" Neither do 
they. If it should be objected here, — "why did 
not the apostles continue to speak to the unbe- 
lieving Jews about the damnation of hell, allowing it 
to mean the temporal miseries coming on that gener- 
ation ? why should they not have continued to warn 
them of this, as their Lord had done before them ?" — 
The answer to this is easy. In Luke xix. 42. our 
Lord told the Jews that the things which belonged to 
their peace were now hid from their eyes. Their 
doom was fixed, their punishment was unavoidable. 
Accordingly our Lord said, — "how can ye escape the 
damnation of hell V Soon the v/rath of God was to- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 237 

come on them to the uttermost. This it did in the 
destruction of their city and temple, when such ca- 
lamities came upon them as never had been before, 
nor ever should be again, and unless the Lord had 
shortened the days, no flesh could have been saved. 

In many places of the epistles, written to believers, 
allusions are made to the judgments of God coming 
on the Jewish nation, though not mentioned under the 
name Gehenna. The event is not only alluded to, 
but spoken of as near ; and Christians are exhorted 
to patience, and holiness, in view of it. But these 
very parts of the epistles, are by many, like the texts 
which speak of Gehenna, all applied to punishment 
in a future state of existence. See for example^ I. 
Thess. V. 1—10. 1 Peter iv. 17~19. 



SECTION V. 



THE ARGUMENT, ARISING FROM THE APOCRYPHA AND TAR- 
GUMS, IN FAVOUR OF ENDLESS MISERY IN GEHENNA OR 
HELL, CONSIDERED. 



If Gehenna or hell in the New Testament, means, 
as is generally believed, a place of endless misery, 
the evidence of this, we might expect, to be plain, and 
conclusive. But we have examined it, and have not 
only found it defective, but have, in fact, found the 
evidence strongest on the opposite side of the ques- 
tion. We have considered all the texts in which this 
word occurs, and have found, the temporal punish- 
ment of the Jews is referred to by the damnation of 
hell. Besides: we have stated a number of facts, 
which we think never can be reconciled with the cur- 
rent opinion on this subject. I might, therefore, here 
stop, until it is known, how such facts are disposed of, 
and it is shown, that I have misinterpreted the passa- 
ges in which the word Gehenna occurs. But as the 
Targums and the Apocrypha are appealed to in proof 
of this doctrine, it might be deemed wrong in me al- 
together to overlook the argument, which such per- 
sons attempt to draw from them. They may think, 
that I ought to account for it, why these writers came 
to use the term Gehenna as meaning a place of end- 
less miser}^, if my views of Gehenna be correct. 

We think this ought to be accounted for; but I de- 
ny, that I am under any obligations to account for it. 



^A^ INQUIRY INTO THE WORD GEHENNA. 239 

Let such as value their authority account for it, how 
Gehenna, as Dr. Campbell affirms, came gradually to 
be used to express a place of future punishment for 
the wicked, and at length came to be confined to it. 
Must I do their work and m.y own too ? Jt is their 
business to show, that the gradual change in the meardng 
of the term Gehenna did not originate from the gradual 
invention of men^ hut from the authority of God> We 
think, if Gehenna could be ^voved satisfactorily^ to 
mean a place of endless misery from the Bible^ there 
was no occasion to call in the authority of the Targums 
and Apocrypha to prove this doctrine* Only give us 
God'^s authority for it^ and 21*5 ask no other. — But, horvev- 
er unreasonable the dema^cd is on me^ I shall now pay 
some attention to this. 

Let us begin with the Apocrypha, These writings 
all have access to, and can read them at their leisure. 
I shall simply give all the places in which the term 
hell is used in the Apocrypha. It occurs in the fol- 
lowing places, 2 Esdras ii. 29,; iv. 8.; viii. 53. To- 
bit xiii. 2. Wrsd. xvii. 14. Eccles. xxi. 10.; li. 5, 6.. 
Song of the three children, verse Q^Q. It would serve 
no valuable purpose for me to transcribe these pas- 
sages, as they can be easily referred to and read. 
On the whole of them I shall submit the following 
remarks. — Though the word hell is used in all these 
places, yet a very important inquiry is, — did the wri- 
ters of the Apocrypha use the word Hades or Gehen- 
na in the original? From reading the passages in the 
English version, we began to suspect, from the phrase- 
ology connected with the word hell, that Hades and 
not Gehenna was the word used in the original. We 
have been at some pains to examine this, and shall 
give the result of our inquiries about it. We have 
found, then, in the original Greek of the Apocrypha 
that it is the term Hades^ not Gehenna^ that is used, 
with the exception of the passages mentioned in the 



.240 AN INQUIRY INTO 

second book of Esdras, which book we have not been 
able to find. But from the phraseology which is 
connected with the word hell, in the English version, 
we are persuaded that the three places in Esdras, 
when examined, will form no exception to the use of 
the word Hades in all the other places. If Gray, in 
his key to the Old Testament, is to be believed, this 
book is not to be found in the original. He says, p. 
531. " The second book of Esdras is not to be found 
in any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts. It is supposed 
to have been originally written in the Greek language ; 
but is extant only in a few Latin copies, and in an 
Arabic version." He adds, p. 534. '• The book was 
never admitted into the Hebrew canon; and there is 
no sufficient authority to prove that it was ever extant 
1 in the Hebrew language. Its pretended prophecies 
. are not produced in evidence by Christian writers, 
striking as such testimony must have been, if genu- 
ine ; and the book was never publicly or generally 
acknowledged either in the Greek or Latin church; 
nor was it ever inserted in the sacred catalogue, by 
either councils or fathers ; but is expressly represent- 
ed as apocryphal by St. Jerom, who describes it as 
rejected by the church." 

Leaving, then, the three places where the term hell 
is used in the second book of Esdras, out of the pres- 
ent question, let us see what all the others amount to, 
in proving that hell means a place of endless misery 
for the wicked. 

1st, In all the other places, where the word hell is 
used, the original w^ord is Hades. Are we then to re- 
ceive it as a truth, on the authority of these uninspir- 
ed writers, that Hades is a place of endless punish- 
ment for the wicked? We think it has been shown 
that this is not the sense in w hich the New Testament 
writers use this word. Nor is Sheol, its correspond- 
ing word in the Old, used in this sense. See chap. L 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 241 

We demand then, how these apocryphal writers came 
to give to Hades such a different meaning from that 
of the sacred writers, both in the Old and New Tes- 
tament. From what divi7ie source of information did 
they learn that Hades was the place of future eternal 
punishment? If it is not found in this sense in the in- 
spired writings, ought it to be found in theirs ? And 
are we obliged to receive it in this sense implicitly on 
their authority? Besides; why have the above au- 
thors in proving that Gehenna is used to signify a 
place of endless misery quoted the Apocrypha, when 
this word is not once used there? They declare that 
Hades is not a place of endless punishment, and yet 
quote texts where this word occurs in the Apocrypha 
to prove that it is. The fact is, they took it for 
granted that where hell is used by the Apocryphal 
writers, that the original word was Gehenna. This 
was a very great oversight. If they knew to the con- 
trary, it was certainly very wrong to confound two 
places, which are so plainly distinguished in Scrip- 
ture, and which they themselves have so expressly 
distinguished. 

2d, It has been shown in Chap, i, sect. 3. that the 
Jews learned the notion of eternal punishment in 
Hades from the heathen. Is it any wonder then, that 
in the books of the Apocrypha, we should find this 
word used in this sense; books known to contain so 
much fiction, and fancy, and so many other heathen 
notions? It would rather be surprising, if we did not. 
If any one will affirm that these writers did not learn 
their notion of a punishment in Hades from the hea- 
then, it is his duty to show from what other source 
their information was derived. It was not from the 
Old Testament, for it contains no such information. 
If the Apocryphal books were all written- before the 
New Test jment, it is plain the writers did not derive 
their information about Hades as a place of punish- 
21 



Q42 AN maUIRir INTO 

m,ent from it. Supposing some of them, yea^ admit 
all of them to have been written after the New Testa^ 
meat, this information was not derived from it, for it 
contained no such information. If their notions then 
concerning Hades be not of heathen origin, let it be 
shown that they are divine, 

3d, But it should be remembered that the original 
word which is used by these writers, is not Gehenna^ 
but Hades. Now it hath been shown beyond a doubt^ 
that Hades is not the place of eternal punishment for 
the wicked, but is in fact to be destroyed, or be no 
more. All, then, which the most zealous contenders 
for future punishment could make out from the usage 
of the word hell, in the Apocrypha, w^ould be, that 
it is an intermediate place of punishment between 
death and the resurrection. It proves nothing on the 
subject of endless misery in Gehenna or hell^ the word 
which is supposed by Dr. Campbell and others, prop- 
erly to express this place of punishment. But there 
is one thing which ought not to be overlooked. Dr. 
Campbell, we have seen, says that Gehenna is not 
used in the Old Testament to express a place of end- 
less misery for the wicked, but that in process of time, 
it came gradually to assume this sense, and at last 
came to be confined to it. The gradual change must 
have taken place between the completion of the Old 
Testament Scriptures and the commencement of the 
gospel dispensation; for he says that in this sense it 
is always used in the New Testament. It is believed 
that some, if not all, the Apocryphal books, were 
written during this period. We were not a little sur- 
prised, then, in finding that not one of the Apocryphal 
writers ever used the term Gehenna in this sense, or 
in any other, throughout their writings. It is then 
put beyond all possibility of controversy, that this 
gradual change of the meaning of Gehenna was not 
Jirought about about by these writers. Whoever did 



THE WORD GEHENNA. t^S 

this, it cannot be imputed to them.- We suspect how- 
ever, from the word hell being used in the English 
version of the Apocrypha, that they are accused of 
this. But this is a great mistake, for the word Ge- 
henna is not once used by them. Who then brought 
about this gradual change in the meaning of the term 
Gehenna? I cannot find that Dr. Campbell, or any 
other writer, gives any information on this subject. 

I mayjust add, that it would be much more like the 
truth to have said, ^'that the word Hades or Sheol 
does not occur in the Old Testament as meaning 1 
place of endless misery. But in process of time, it 
came gradually to be used in this sense and at last 
was confined to it." Here the Apocrypha could be 
appealed to for this new sense of the word Hades. 
But after all, the question would still remain unan- 
swered ; On whose authority was this new sense given 
to the word Hades ? 

4th, The many silly and ridiculous things contained 
in the Apocrypha, forbid us receiving the doctrine 
that hell is a place of endless misery, on its authority. 
At what point are we to stop, if once we admit its au- 
thority on the subject before us? It is the learned, not 
the unlearned, who appeal to this kind of authority. 
Never in the whole course of my past life, have I 
heard a private Christian, or any preacher quote the 
Apocrypha to prove, that hell was a place of endless 
misery. Were it done, no regard would be paid to 
it ; and if any Universalist quoted it in proof of his 
views, it would be proof enough that his views could 
not be supported from the Bible. But what degree 
of dependance is to be placed on any of the books in 
the Apocrypha, in determining the truth of any par- 
ticular doctrine, and especially such an important 
one as this in question, may be seen from the follow- 
ing quotation from Gray, in his preface to the Apoc- 
ryphal books, p. 511. " The books which are admit- 



244 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ted into our Bibles under the description of Apocry- 
phal books, are so denominated from a Greek word, 
which is expressive of the uncertainty and concealed 
nature of their original. They have no title to be 
considered as inspired writings ; and though in re- 
s^pect of their antiquity and valuable contents they 
are annexed to the canonical books, it is in a separate 
division : and by no means upon an idea that they are 
of equal authority, in point of doctrine, with ihem; 
or that they are to be received as oracles of faith; 
to sanctify opinions, or to determine religious contro- 
versies." 

It would be a mere waste of time to pursue this ar- 
gument further. Whether Gehenna is, or is not, a 
place of eternal punishment, no argument can be de- 
rived from the Apocrypha, to prove that it was con* 
sidered a place of punishment by those writers; for 
they do not once use this word. 

Let us now attend to the Targums. For the infor- 
mation of some, we give the following abridged ac« 
count of them from Prideaux's Connections, vol. iw 
p. 560—585. 

" The Chaldee paraphrases are translations of the 
Scriptures of the Old Testament made directly from 
the Hebrew text into the language of the Chaldeans; 
which language was anciently used through all As- 
syria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, Syria, and Palestine; 
and is still the language of' the churches of the Nes- 
torian and Maronite Christians in those eastern parts, 
in the same manner as the Latin is the language of 
the Popish churches here in the west.. And therefore 
these paraphrases were called Targums, because they 
were versions or translations of the Hebrew text into 
this language; for the word targum signifieth, in 
Chaldee, an interpretation or version of one language 
into another, and may properly be said of any such 
version or translation ; but it is most commonly by 



THE WORD* GJiHENNA.. 245 

the Jews appropriated to these Chaldee paraphrases ; 
for being among them what were most eminently 
such, they therefore had this name by Way of emi- 
nency especially given to them. 

'' These Targums were made for the use and in- 
struction of the vulgar Jews after their return from 
the Babylonish captivity ; for, although many of the 
better sort still retained the knowledge of the He- 
brew language during that captivity, and taught it 
their children, and the Holy Scriptures that were 
delivered after that time, excepting only some parts 
of Daniel and Ezra, and one verse in Jeremiah, 
were all written therein ; yet the common people, by 
having so long conversed with the Babylonians, 
learned their language, and forgot their own. It hap- 
pened indeed otherwise to the children of Israel in: 
Egypt; for, although they lived there above three 
times as long as the Babylonish captivity lasted, yet 
they still preserved the Hebrew language among 
them, and brought it back entire with them into Ca- 
naan. The reason of this was, in Egypt they all liv- 
ed together in the land of Goshen ; but on their being 
carried captive by the Babylonians, they were dis- 
persed all over Chaldea and Assyria, and, being there 
intermixed with the people of the land, had their 
main converse with them, and therefore w^ere forced 
to learn their language; and this soon induced a dis- 
use of their own among them ; by which means it 
came to pass, that, after their return, the cotnmon peo-- 
pie, especially those of them who had been bred up 
in that captivity, understood not the Holy Scriptures 
in the Hebrew language, nor their posterity after 
them. And therefore, when Ezra read the law to the 
people, he had several persons standing by him well 
skilled in both the Chaldee and Hebrew languages, 
who interpreted to the people in Chaldee Vvhat he 
first read to them in Hebrew. And after v/ards, when^ 
21* 



246 



AN INQUIRY INTO 



the method was established of dividing the law into 
54 sections, and of reading one of them every week 
in their synagogues, the same course of reading to 
the people the Hebrew text first, and then interpret- 
ing it to them in Chaldee, was still continued. For, 
when the reader had read one verse in Hebrew, an 
interpreter standing by did render it into Chaldee ; 
and then the next verse being read in Hebrew, it was 
in like manner interpreted in the same language as 
before; and so on from verse to verse was every 
verse alternately read first in the Hebrew, and then 
interpreted in Chaldee to the end of the section ; and 
this first gave occasion for the making of Chaldee 
versions for the help of these interpreters. And they 
thenceforth became necessary not only for their help 
in the public synagogues, but also for the help of the 
people at home in their families, that they might 
there have the Scriptures for their private reading in 
a language which they understood. 

"This work having been attempted by divers per- 
sons at different times, and by some of them with dif- 
ferent views (for some of them were written as versions, 
for the public use of the synagogues, and others as 
paraphrases and commentaries for the private in- 
s'ruction of the people,) hence it hath come to pass, 
that there were anciently many of these Targums, 
and of different sorts, in the same manner as there 
a r-iently were many different versions of the same 
Holy Scriptures into the Greek language* made with 
like different views ; of which we have sufficient proof 
in ihe Octalpa of Origen. No doubt, anciently there 
were many more of these Targums, than we now 
know of, which have been lost in the length of time. 
Whether there were any of them of the same com- 
posure on the whoie Scriptures is not any where said. 
Those that are now remaining were composed by dif- 
ferent persons, and on different parts of Scripture. 



TEE WORD GEHENNA* ^247 

some on one part, and others on other parts ; and are, 
in all, of these eight sorts following. 1. ThatofOn- 
kelos on the five books of Moses; 2. That of Jona- 
than Ben Uzziel on the prophets, that is, on Joshua, 
Judges, the two books of Samuel, the two books of 
Kings, I$aiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and the twelve mi- 
nor prophets ; 3. That on the law, v/hich is ascribed 
to Jonathan Ben Uzziel ; 4. The Jerusalem Targum 
on the law ; 5. The Targum on the five lesser books, 
called the Megilloth, i.e. Ruth, Esther, Ecclesiastes, 
the Song of Solomon, and the Lamentations of Jere- 
miah; 6, The second Targum on Esther; 7. The 
Targum of Joseph, the one-eyed, on the book of Job, 
the Psalms, and the Proverbs; and, 8. The Targum 
on the first and second book of Chronicles. On Ez- 
ra, Nehemiah, and Daniel, there is no Targum at all. 
The reason given by some for this is, because a great 
part of those books is written in the Chaldee lan- 
guage, and therefore there is no need of a Chaldee 
paraphrase upon them. This indeed is true for Dan- 
iel and Ezra, but not for Nehemiah; for that book is 
all originally written in the Hebrew language. No 
doubt, anciently there were Chaldee paraphrases on 
all the Hebrew parts of those books, though now lost* 
It was long supposed that there were no Targums on 
the two books of Chronicles, because none such were 
known, till they were lately published by Beckius, 
at Augsburg in Germany, that on the first book A. D. 
1680,'and that on the second in 1683." 

Having given this abrid;ied account of the Tar- 
gums, let us attend to what men quote from them, in 
proof that Gehenna, in the New I'estament, is used 
to express a place of endless misery for ail the wick- 
ed. It is very natural for one to conclude, that the 
quotations made would be given us at length, and 
that they would be full and explicit in establishing 
tl^is doctrine. We have been at some pains to col- 



24 S AN INQUIRY INTO 

lect from men who have had access to such scarce 
books, to see and judge for ourselves concerning what 
they produced from them in proof* The following, 
is all we have seen quoted from them, to prove that 
Gehenna or hell signifies a place of endless misery. 
Mr, Parkhurst on the word Gehenna, thus writes, 
-' From this valley's having been the scene of those 
infernal sacrifices, and probably too from its contin- 
uing after the time of Josiah's reformation, 2 Kings 
xxiii. 10. a place of abominable JUthiness and pollu- 
tion ; the Jews in our Saviour's time used the com- 
pound word ge enm^ for hell, the place of the damned. 
This appears from that word's being thus applied by 
the Chaldee Targums on Ruth ii. 12. Psalm cxl. 12.- 
Isai. xxvi. 1^ — 5. and xxxiii. 14. and by the Jerusa- 
lem Targums, and that of Jonathan Ben Uzziel. Gen^ 
iii. 24. and xv. 17. Compare 2 Esdras ii. 29." It 
ought to be noticed here, that Parkhurst does not 
quote one word from these Targums to let us see 
what they have said, but merely says, that the word 
Gehenna is used for the place of the damned in cer- 
tain places in the Targums, on some texts in the Old 
Testament to v/hich he refers. Let any one turn to 
those texts and he will see, that Gehenna does not 
occur in one of them. Yea, it is difficult to perceive 
how any man could introduce the doctrine of hell 
torments in speaking of them. The only exception 
to this is Isai. xxxiii. 14. a text we have considered 
in chap. ii. sect. 3. In whatever way the Targum- 
ists speak of Gehenna in those texts, it is certain that 
nothing said in the texts themselves afforded them the 
least occasion to say that Gehenna was the place of 
the damned. At any rate we ought to have seen 
what they have said, that we might judge of the evi- 
dence they have adduced, for ourselves. On a sub- 
ject like the one before us, it affords no satisfaction 
to give us a volume of such kind af proof. I shall 



THEl WORD GEHENNA. 249 

also quote the following from WhitbjT- on Mark ix*^ 
43, 44. — '' That Gehenna was by the Jews still look- 
ed on and represented as the place in which the wick- 
ed. were to be tormented by fire: so the Jerusalem 
Targum represents Gehenna which is prepared for 
the wicked ii) the world to come, as a furnace spark- 
ling and flaming with fire, into which the wicked falL 
And the Targum upon Ecclesiastes speaks of the fire 
of helK Eccles. ix. 15. of the sparks of the fire of 
hell, chap. X. 11. And of the wicked, who shall go 
to be burned in hell, chap. viii. 10. Accordingly our 
Lord speaks, verse xlvii. and Matth. v. 22. of the 
wicked being cast into the fire of hell, and of their 
being cast into a furnace of fire, Matth. xiii. 42." — > 
He adds, — ^^The ancient Jews held that the punish- 
ment of the wicked in hell should be perpetual or 
without end. So Judith saith that they shall weep 
under the sense of their pains forever, chap. xvi. 17. 
Josephus informs us that the Pharisees held that the 
souls of the wicked were to be punished with perpet- 
ual punishment, and that there was appointed for 
them a perpetual prison. Philo saith the punishment 
of the wicked person is to live forever dying ; and to 
be forever in pains and griefs, and calamities that 
never cease." The same remarks which have just 
been made on the quotation from Parkhurst nearly 
apply with the same force to the one just quoted from 
Whitby. We are not furnished with the passages at 
length, but mere scraps of expressions are afforded 
us. Yea, in the first of his statement he quotes ar 
rather refers to the Jerusalem Targum, but does not 
say what place in it we are to find any thing about 
this. Such a mode of quotation from the Targums 
or any other books might just as well be spared, if 
they are made for the purpose of proving any thing, 
with a view to convince the reader. 



250 AN INQUIRy INTO 

This is all I have beeii able to find quoted from the 
Targums to prove that Gehenna is a place of endless 
punishment for the VvMcked. 1 have no doubt if any 
ihing better could have been found, those two learn- 
ed men would have produced it. I must be permit- 
ted to say, that these quotations, do the doctrine no 
credit, and reflect no honor on (he men who adduced 
them. But seeing nothing better is afforded us, let 
us suppose that the writers of the Targums did use 
Gehenna to mean a place of endless misery for the 
wicked. Let us grant for argument's sake, that these 
quotations, ipquotations they may be called, from 
the Targums, show sufficiently that the writers used 
Gehenna in this waj^. What does this prove ? It sim- 
ply proves that those Targumists, who are reckoned 
by Prideaux the w^orst or the least esteemed, used 
Gehenna in this sense. The Targums referred toby 
Parkhurst and Whitby are those into which the writ- 
ers introduced their own glosses and silly stories, fa- 
bles, prolix explications, and other additions. Are 
we then to believe such a doctrine on such kind of 
authority? He that is able to receive it, let him re- 
ceive it ; I beg to be excused. On these quotations 
I shall now submit a few remarks for candid consid- 
eration. 

1st, If the Targums are good authority, that Ge- 
henna is a place of endless punishment, their author- 
ity is equally good in determining who are to suffer 
it. Permit me then to adduce the same authority, as 
quoted by Whitby on Rom. ii. to show, that no Jew 
w^ould go to hell to be punished forever, but that all 
the Gentiles are fit fuel for hell fire. He says, — • 
"The Jewish religion was very much corrupted at 
our Saviour's coming, so that they thought it suffi- 
cient to obtain God's favour, and to secure them from 
his judgments, — 1st, That they were of the seed of 
Abraham; and hence the Baptist speaks thus to them.. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. ^51 

hring forth fruits meet for repentance^ and (think it not 
sufficient to) say within yourselves, we have Jlbraliamfor 
our father^ Matth. iii. 8, 9. The Chaldee paraphrasts 
do often mention their expectation of being preserved 
for the merits or good works of their forefathers^ 
Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; and their writers add, 
that hell fire hath no power over the sinners of Israel^ be- 
cause Abraham and Isaac descend thither to fetch tltem 
thence. 2d, They held that circumcision was of suf- 
ficient virtue to render them accepted of God, and to 
preserve them from eternal ruin ; far thej teach that 
no circumcised person goes to hell ; God having promised 
to deliver them from it ybr the merit of circumcision ; 
and having told Abraham, that when his children fell 
into transgression^ and did zoicked works ^ hezuould remem- 
ber the odour of their foreskins^ and would be satisfied 
with their piety. And, 3d, They taught that all Israel- 
ites had a portion in the world to come ; and that not- 
withstanding their sins, yea, though they were con- 
demned here for their wickedness : whereas, of all 
the Gentiles, without exception, they pronounce that 
they are fuel for hell fir e.'''^ Let persons then, who 
quote the Targums in proof that Gehenna or hell is 
a place of endless misery, take their choice. They 
must either reject their authority altogether, or be 
willing to go to hell on the same authority ; as Gen- 
tiles w^e must all be content to be fuel for hell fire. 
Let us then make up our minds, whether we shall, for 
the sake of maintaining the authority and honour of 
the Targums in the one case, be willing to submit to 
the punishment they assign us in the other. We must 
either accept of both or reject both. — We might here 
take our leave of the Targums : for what has now^ 
been stated, is sufficient to convince any man, that 
their authority is not for a moment to be regarded. 
But we shall proceed. 



^52 AN INQUIRY INTO 

2(3, Parkhurst says in the abov^ quotation, that, 
^' the Jews in our Saviour's time used the compound 
word, ge enm, for hell, the place of the damned." And 
he adds, that ''this appears from that w^ord's being 
thus applied by the Chaldee Targums and by the 
Jerusalem Targums and that of Ben Uzziel." And 
why does it not diho appear that all the stories, and 
glosses, and fables, which they introduced into their 
Targums, are also true? We have the same author- 
ity for the one ys for the other. If it should be said, 
that the Targums are only appealed to for the man- 
ner in which. the Jews used this word, we reply that 
this is not the whole truth, for it is in the way the 
Jews did use this word in the Targums, that the doc- 
trine is attempted to be proved. The sense in which 
our Lord used the word Gehenna is assumed, and the 
Targums ar\3 appealed to not only for the sense of 
this word but for the truth of the doctrine. Let it 
be shown from the context of the passages in which 
it is used, that this is its sense, and there is no neces- 
sity to appeal to the Targums. But if this be true 
which is stated in the above quotations why docs it 
not also appear, that the Gentiles were fuel for hell 
fire ? By this way of making things appear to be true^ 
it will be no difficult thing to show, that all the silly, 
sick-brained stories of the Apocrypha, Targums, and 
Talmuds, are true. Besides, by the same rule, we 
ought to believe, that the fire of hell is literal, mate- 
rial fire, for the Targumists appear to have believed 
this, as is plain from the above quotation. But no- 
tice, that Whitby says, that 'Mhe Jewish religion was 
very much corrupted at our Saviour's coming." By 
what evidence does it appear, that the Gentiles were 
fuel for hell fire, and that this is a corruption of their 
religion, but that hell fire itself was not also a part of 
this corruption ? Neither of these is taught in the 
Old Testament. From what source, then, do we 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 253 

learn, that both are not a corruption of their religion ? 
How could they be any- thing but a corruption of 
their religion, when not found in their Scriptures? If 
this is denied, let proof be produced to the contrary. 
After reading the above quotation from Whitby, no 
one can doubt that the Jewish religion was very much 
corrupted. It was a corruption, however, as any one 
may see, which flattered themselves, and sufficiently 
expressed their enmity against the Gentiles. After 
seeing this quotation, and considering the strange and 
even ridiculous opinions held by the Jews, what cred- 
it can any man give to any thing such persons could 
say about Gehenna being a place of endless misery? 
One would certainly be disposed to think, that, so far 
from the doctrine being true, it was invented for the 
purpose of showing the deep-rooted aversion which 
they had to Gentiles. If Gehenna or hell, held by 
them to be a place of endless misery, for all the Gen- 
tiles, be a truth, yet all the other things stated in the 
above quotation are considered corruptions of their 
religion, we honestly own that we have seldom seen 
a truth held with so many absurd notions. Howev- 
er, if it can be proved that this part is a truth, and 
all the otliers are errors which they blended with it, 
we shall be happy to give the evidence produced a 
candid examination. To say the least of it, the tes- 
timony of such witnesses, is very suspicious. 

3d, But we should like to know how the writers of 
the Targums, Josephus, and Philo, quoted above, 
came by the information, which they detail to us con- 
cerning hell or Gehenna. By what means did they 
come to know, that it was a place of punishment for 
the wicked, that the punishment was to be literal fire, 
and endless in its duration? I repeat the question, — 
Where did the above persons get all this information 
which they communicate to us about hell? Did they 
derive it from the heathen, ordid they invent it them- 
2^ 



254 AN INQUIRY INTO 

selves ? If from neither of those sources^ let it be 
shown from what source they did derive it. Until it 
can be proved that this information was derived from 
God's authority, no man ought to believe it. 

But it may be objected to this, by saying, is it not 
said, in the above quotations, that " our Lord speaks, 
Mark ix. 47. and Matth. v. 22. of the wicked being 
cast into the fire of hell, and of their being cast into 
a furnace of fire, Matth. xiii. 42. ?" The twofirs.tDf 
these passages have been considered before, being 
two of those in which Gehenna occurs. It has been 
shown that Gehenna in no one instance, signifies a 
place of endless misery for the wicked. As to the 
last passage, we have shown in an Inquiry into the 
import of the word aion^ translated everlasting, &c. 
that it has nothing to do with a place of endless mis- 
ery, but that it refers to the same temporal calamities 
which are spoken of under the emblem of Gehenna, 
by the prophet Jeremiah. We can show that our 
Lord did not derive his allusions to a " furnace of 
fire" in the above passages, from the Targunis, but 
from the Old Testament Scriptures. This, however, 
we cannot do here. It is very certain, that almost 
all professing Christians, not only in our day, but for 
many ages past, have believed that Gehenna or hell, 
is the place of eternal punishment for all the wicked. 
One should think that it would not be difficult to show 
from what source this information was derived. We 
might also expect, that instead of referring to the 
Targums and the Apocrypha, God's authority would 
be appealed to at once, and that the Scripture evi- 
dence of its truth, would be full and explicit. A sub- 
ject of such universal and deep interest to the human 
race, we think would not be left as a matter of doubt- 
ful disputation, depending on the sense which the 
writers of the Targums give to the word Gehenna. 
Even when such writings are appealed to, they afford 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 25 ? 

but little satisfaction, as to proof of the doctrine, and 
give us but a poor opinion of either the piety of the 
writers or the correctness of their religious opinions. 
If eternal punishment in hell, be a part of the reveal- 
ed'will of God, at some time or other this revelation 
must have been given* Now I am willing to believe 
it, and shall teach it with all the ability God has giv- 
en me, if it can be shown that such a revelation has 
been given, during any part of the four following pe- 
riods of time: which includes all periods in which it 
could be revealed. 

1st, I shall believe it, if it can be proved, that it 
was revealed at any time during the Old Testament 
dispensation. That such a doctrine, as the eternity 
of hell torments, was not revealed during this period, 
is now generally admitted. It is denied that it was 
revealed under the name of Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, 
or even Gehenna, during that dispensation : and it is 
not pretended that any other name is used to express 
this place of endless punishment. I therefore observe 

2d, That I shall believe this doctrine, if it can be 
proved, that God revealed it any time from the com- 
pletion of the Old Testament Scriptures to the com- 
mencement of the gospel dispensation. The time 
which elapsed between these two events, was about 
four hundred years. The Apocrypha and Targums 
, are supposed to be the writings which fill up this 
chasm ; but it is not pretended that any of these writ- 
ers were inspired to reveal this, or any other doc- 
trine. Though hell is spoken of in these writings, 
yet it has no more claim to our belief, than many 
other things stated in them. Malachi, in closing his 
book commanded attention to be given to the law of 
Moses, until the coming of John the Baptist, but gives 
no injunction to pay attention to the Apocrypha or 
the Targums. And we have no account, during the 
above period, that any inspired prophet arose, and 



^5S AN INQUIRY INTO 

revealed such a doctrine to the world. To quote any 
writer from Malachi to John the Baptist, in proof of 
this doctrine, is nothing to the purpose* 

3d, 1 will believe this doctrine, if it is proved that 
God revealed it since the New Testament was com- 
pleted. This is not supposed, for it is contended by 
all who hold it, that it was revealed long before this. 
We have seen that it is spolcen of by the writers of 
the Targums, Josephus, and Philo, which sets this 
question at rest. To contend that it was revealed 
after the New Testament was completed, would be to 
give it up as a Scripture doctrine, and sanction all the 
wild pretensions to inspiration since that period. If 
we do not end our revelations with the New Testa- 
ment, we shall have a host of inspired fanatics, and 
an inundation of enthusiastical reveries, for the faith- 
ful sayings of God. 

4th, I will believe this doctrine, if it can be proved 
that it has been revealed by God to men during the 
ministry of Christ or any of his apostles ; or, in other 
words, if it can be proved from the New Testament. 
On this ground it is placed by Dr. Campbell, and all 
who contend for endless misery, in Gehenna or hell. 
In support of this sense of the term Gehenna in the 
New^ Testament, the Targums and the Apocrypha are 
appealed to, and it is taken for granted, that this is its 
sense there, without any examination of the passages 
where it occurs. All these passages we have consid- 
ered, and we think have shown, that no such doctrine 
is taught in them. Besides, we adduced a number of 
facts, at variance with such a view of the subject. 
Are we then implicitly to believe what those unin- 
spired writers say about Gehenna, and in face of all 
the evidence we have adduced to the contrarj^? No 
reasonable man can expect this of us. But we have 
a few remarks to make on the above quotations, of a 
clifTerent nature from those already made. 



THE WORD GEHENNA* 257 

1st, We cannot help noticing the similarity of opin- 
ion among the Jews in those days, and good people 
in these, respecting those who are to go to hell or 
Gehenna. In those days the Jews considered all Gen- 
tilts as jit fuel for hell fire. They exempted them- 
selves from such a punishment ; for no Jew could go 
to hell ! If any Jew ever went there " hell fire hath 
no power over the sinners of Israel, because Abraham and 
Isaac descend thither to fetch them thcnce.^'^ The merit 
of circumcision^ and the odour of their foreskins was 
sufficient to save them from hell. Such was the faith 
of the persons on whose authority we are to believe 
Gehenna or helj to be a place of endless misery ! 
Gentiles now retaliate on the Jews, and in their turn, 
consign all the Jews to the punishment of hell. Ask 
persons who believe in the doctrine of hell torments, 
' do you expect to go to hell ?" " Oh ! no," say they, 
'God forbid, that we should go to hell." And why 
should not they go to hell, as well as any other per- 
sons? You will find that they have similar reasons 
o assign as the Jews had, why they are exempted 
rom this punishment. They have Abraham, or some 
;ood man for their father; they have been baptized ; 
hey have joined the church. These or something 
similar has put all their fears to rest about their go- 
ng to hell! The fact is, 1 never met with a person 
Q my life who believed that hell was a place of pun- 
'shment for himself, but always for some other per- 
ons, such as Jews and heathen, and wicked persons 
n their town or neighbourhood. Yea, we have known 
ome, even of the best of men, who, while their chil- 
dren, relations and neighbours lived, looked on them 
is in the broad road to hell, but when they died, and 
hat without much evidenceof repentance, still hoped 
ihat they had gone to heaven. This conduct of theirs, 
|ias reminded us of the ancient Romans, who, while 
22* 



258 AN INQUIRY INTO 

their Cssars lived, counted them devils, but after 
they were dead, deified them. 

2d, If the writers of the Targums did use the term 
Gehenna to express the place of endless misery, and 
if the Jews considered the Gentiles fit fuel for hell 
fire, it ought to be considered how they came by such 
opinions. This we shall attempt to inquire into, and, 
if possible, ascertain the source whence they were 
derived. — There are several points fixed about this, 
which will enable us, at least, to come to some general 
conclusions on the subject. 1st, The word Gehenna 
does not occur in the Old Testament in the sense of a 
place of future punishment for the wicked. It is ap- 
parent, then, that these opinions held by the Jews, 
could not have been derived from the Old Testament 
Scriptures. Here is one point settled, about which 
there can be no dispute. 

2d, That the word Gehenna was used to express a 
place of endless misery in the days of our Lord, is 
not only affirmed by Dr. Campbell, but at this period 
it had come to be confined to this sense. He says 
that this is always and indisputably its sense in the 
New Testament. Admitting this to be true, let me 
observe 

3d, That Dr. Campbell also declares, that the term 
Gehenna came gradually to be used in this new sense, 
which it had not in the Old Testament. Who first 
began to give it this new sense, or how long a time 
elapsed before it came to be confined to it, he gives 
us no information. At this distance of time, it is 
perhaps impossible to settle these questions. One 
thing, however, is certain, that this new sense affixed 
to the word Gehenna, was not of divine authority, but 
came gradually to have this sense given it by the 
Jews. This leads us to inquire 

4th, About what period of time the Jews began to 
give it this new sense. This appears to have been 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 250 

after iheii' captivity in Babylon. It was long after 
this period that the Targums were written. Where 
then could the Jews learn their opinion of a place of 
eternal punishment but among the heathen ? That 
they did learn this from the heathen, we think, has 
been shown in a quotation from Dr. Campbell. See 
chap. i. sect. 3. But observe, that though they learn- 
ed among the heathen that Hades was a place of 
eternal misery, they did not learn from them to call 
it by the name Gehenna. This was a Hebrew word, 
and its application to the place of future punishment 
was most likely to be done by the Jews. It is not de- 
nied but that the Jews did so apply it, and it is not 
said to be so applied by the heathen. If the question 
is asked, how did the Jews come to give to this place 
of future punishment such a name as Gehenna? We 
think the answer to this is both easy and natural. 
Could there be any thing more natural than to call it 
by the name of the most horrid and abominable place 
known to Jev^s, which was Gehenna, or the valley of 
Hinnom. In proof ray assertion, I quote Jjihn's Ar- 
chaeology, p. 527. He says — " In the later periods 
of the Jewish kingdom, this idol was erected in the 
valley south of Jerusalem, viz. tDun ': or 03n p 'j, 
in the valley of Hinnom, and in the part of said valley 
called tophet^ ni3n, so named from the drums^ ?]n, O'Sn, 
which were beaten to prevent the groans and cries of 
children sacrificed, from being heard, Jer. vii. 31,32.: 
xix. 6 — 14. Isai. xxx. 33. 2 Kings xxiii. 10. The 
place was so abhorrent to the minds of the more re^ 
cent Jews, that they applied the name Ge Hinnom or 
Gehenna to the place of torments in a future life. The 
word Gehenna is used in this way, {viz. for the place 
of punishment beyond the grave,) very frequently in 
oriental writers, as far as India. Compare Wet- 
stein's New Testament, at Matth. v. 5." We have 
seen that Dr. Campbell has said that, after the cap- 



260 AN INQUIRY INTO 

tivity, the Jews began to speak of heaven, or the place 
of happiness for the good, by the name of paradise, 
and Abraham's bosom, the happiest or most pleasant 
places they had any idea of. And is it not as natur- 
al to think, that they should speak of a place of end- 
less punishment by the name of Gehenna, the most 
abominable place they had any idea of? They, in this 
case, did nothing more than men do every day, in 
expressing some new thing, by the name of some other 
thing, which they think most resembles it. 

5th, How came the Jews, then, to exempt them- 
selves from the punishment of Gehenna, and declare 
all the Gentiles fit fuel for hell fire ? This ought to be 
carefully examined. With a view to ascertain how this 
took place, let the following things be carefully con- 
sidered. We have shown, chap. ii. sect, l.that Ge- 
henna in the Old Testament, was made by the proph- 
et Jeremiah an emblem of future temporal punish- 
ment to the Jewish nation, and which came upon it as 
described by our Lord, Matth. xxiv. This we think 
is beyond all dispute. The Jew^s could not help see- 
ing ^uch a /mishment predicted by their own proph- 
ets. From their intercourse with the heathen they 
had learned the heathen notion that Hades was a 
place of punishment for the wicked. Observe, also, 
that a strong prejudice existed in the minds of the 
Jew^s against the Gentiles. They counted them dogs 
and excluded them from all participation of the bles- 
sings of Messiah's reign. Every one may see from 
Acts, chaps, x. xi. how strong this prejudice was, even 
in the minds of the disciples. They refused to eat 
and drink with them. Yea, even the Jews had no 
dealings with the Samaritans; and whilst they ad- 
mitted that they ought to love their neighbours, they 
thought that they ought to hate their enemies. The 
whole New Testament shows to what extent self-love, 
self-righteousness, national pride, and vanity had 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 261 

taken possession of their minds. This we have seen 
strongly confirmed from the previous quotation from 
Whitby on Rom. ii. Taking all these circumstances 
into view, we think the following at least a rational 
conjecture about this. The Jews hated the Gentiles, 
and to testify this hatred, they declared them to be 
fit fuel for hell fire. Further than this they could 
not carry their hatred of them. As they had learned 
the notion of eternal punishment in Hades from the 
heathen, and had applied the term Gehenna, as a 
name to it, by consigning over all the Gentiles to its 
punishment, and exempting themselves, their hatred 
of them and also their own self-love was gratified; 
yea, by this they blinded their own eyes, as to the pun- 
ishment of Gehenna, threatened them by their own 
prophets. 

But there is one important question on this subject 
to which we ought to pay some attention. - It is this. 
Is it certain that our Lord^ in the New Testament^ when 
he used the term Gehenna orheil^ used it in the sense it has 
in the Targums^ and not in the sense in which it is used in 
the Old Testament ? To decide this question is to put 
the question at rest. It is very evident that Dr. Gamp- 
bell, Parkhurst and Whitby take it for granted that 
our Lord did use the term Gehenna as it is used by 
the writers of the Targums and Apocrypha, to signify 
a place of eternal punishment for the wicked. They 
seem to speak about this, as if it could not, and ought 
not to be questioned ; yet all they advance in proof, 
is bare assertion. They proceed upon the presump- 
tion, that this is indisputable, and entirely overlook, 
what we have proved to be a fact, that the term Ge- 
henna is used in the Old Testament as an emblem of 
the temporal punishment which God was to bring on 
the Jewish nation. Had those men turned their at- 
tention to this, they would have given us a very dif- 



262 AN INQUIRY INTO 

ferent account of Gehenna, and not referred us to the 
Targums and the Apocrypha. 

But, we have to ask, if our Lord used the term Ge- 
henna to express a place of endless misery, how are 
the facts we have adduced to be got over on such a 
view of the subject? If the Targums can be appealed 
to, showing how such facts can be reconciled with 
this view of Gehenna, we hope it will be done. Let 
any one examine those facts, and then say, if it is pos- 
sible for any rational being to believe this until those 
facts are removed out of the way. They form a pha- 
lanx of difficulties as to any man's believing this doc- 
trine, which is impenetrable. Upon no part of this 
Inquiry has more labour of thinking been bestowed, 
than in attempting to reconcile those facts with the 
idea of Gehenna or helPs being a place of endless 
misery for all the wicked. We have turned this point 
round, and viewed it on all sides, and with all the 
care and attention we could command, but have found 
the facts and the doctrine utterly irreconcileable. I 
can sincerely say that I have endeavoured to find 
something which could fairly controvert the facts, or 
reconcile them with this doctrine — but in vain. The 
more I have laboured in this way, the facts have in- 
creased. And I doubt not, that, if the labour was 
continued, they would still increase : for I am not 
convinced that the subject is yet exhausted. 

If I am indeed in an error, in believing that Gehen- 
na or hell in the New Testament has no reference to 
a place of endless punishment, the first step to be 
taken to convince me of my error, is to account for 
the facts. Until these are fairly and honourably re- 
moved out of the way, it is useless to endeavour to 
make me believe this doctrine. The next step to be 
taken to convince me of my error, if it be one, is to 
enter into an examination of the passages which speak 
of Gehenna, and show that I have misinterpreted 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 263 

them. When these things are done, such persons 
may save themselves the trouble to quote the Tar- 
gums, for I will believe the doctrine without any ap- 
peal to their authority. 

The following is all that is to be found in the Tar- 
gums, in the places to which Whitby and Parkhurst 
refer us. 

" Ruth ii. 12. The Lord shall abundantly recom- 
pense thee in this age, for thy good work, and shall 
be thy complete reward to the age that shall come, 
from the presence of the Lord God of Israel; because 
thou hast come to join thyself to his people and wor^ 
ship, and find protection under the shadow of the 
majesty of his glory, and for this righteous conduct 
thou shalt be delivered from the punishment of Ge- 
henna, that thy portion may be with Sarah and Rib- 
hah, and Rachel and Lea." 

"Psalm cxL 10, 11. Let coals of fire fall from 
heaven upon them ; let him cast them into the fire of 
Gehenna ; into miry pits 5 from which let them not 
rise to eternal life. Let the angel of death hunt the 
violent man, and cast him into Gehenna." 

"Isaiah xxvi. 15. Thou hast been revealed to us, 
O ! Lord ! as about to assemble the dispersed of thy 
people ; it shall also come to pass that thou wilt col- 
lect them from their wanderings ; that thou mightest 
appear in thy power, to cast all the wicked into Ge- 
henna." 

"Isaiah xxvi. 19. And those who transgress thy 
word, thou wilt deliver into Gehenna." 

" Isaiah xxxiii. 14. Who among us shall dwell in 
Zion, where the splendor of his majesty is as consum- 
ing fire? Who among us shall dwell in Jerusalem, 
where the wicked are to be judged, and cast into Ge- 
henna, into everlasting burnings ?" 

Our readers have now before them, all that we can 
•find in the Targums, and we leave them to decide, if 



264 AN INQUIRY INTO 

such glosses, on such texts, are a good foundation 
for the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell or Ge- 
henna. 

We have dwelt much longer on the argument drawn 
from the Apocrypha and Targums than we at first 
contemplated ; and much longer than the importance 
of the argument merited. Before closing this Section, 
we must be indulged with a few^ observations, respect- 
ing the Greek version of the Seventy, in regard to the 
subject under consideration. 

1st, At what period of time was this version made ? 
Concerning this, Dr. Kennicott, pages 319, 320. thus 
writes: "After many voluminous controversies amongst 
learned writers upon the Greek version of the Old Tes- 
iament, we seem to have three circumstances clearly 
ascertained — that there was no Greek version before 
that called the seventy — that the version so denomi- 
nated, was made at the beginning of the reign of 
Ptolemy Philadelphus, about 280 years before Christ, 
and that the version, then made, was only of the Pen- 
tateuch. 

It is not necessary for me to spend a moment in 
discussing whether this version w^as made all at once, 
or at different times; nor even whether it w^as made 
at the precise time here specified. A few years, one 
way or another, does not aff°ect the remarks I am 
about to make. One thing w^ill be allowed by all, 
without a single word of controversy, that this version 
was made sometime between thedays of Malachi and 
the coming of John the Baptist. Keeping this one 
fact in view I notice 

2d, That Dr. Campbell declares the word Gehenna 
is not found in the Septuagint version- He says, as 
quoted before, page 93. — -"Accordingly the word 
Gehenna does not occur in the Septuagint. It is not a 
Greek word, and consequently not to be found in the 
Grecian classics." That this word is not found in the 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 265 

Septuagint, being only a translation, need not sur- 
prise us, for Dr. Campbell, in the sentence preceding 
the one just quoted, says concerning Gehenna as a 
place of future punishment— .'^ In the Old Testament 
we do not find this place in the same manner mention- 
ed." Keeping these facts and statements in bur view, 
permit me to make a very few remarks on them, rel- 
ative to the subject of the present inquiry. 

1st, Whoever were the authors of the Greek ver- 
sion, or at whatever period it was made, it is a certain 
case, that in translating the Old Testament, they did 
not find that it contained any thing about Gehenna 
being a place of endless misery for the wicked. Had 
they perceived any thing like this, we should have 
found some iatimation of it in this translation. Had 
the Hebrew^f the Old Testament warranted such a 
thing, no doubt but it would have been transfused 
into this version. We have then the testimony of 
all the translators of the Greek version, that they did 
not find that the spirit of God had ever u^ed the term 
Gehenna in the sense it is commonly used by Christ* 
ians in the present day. This we think a fact which 
will not for a moment be disputed. If they did not 
find it in the Old Testament, how came it to pass that 
the writers of the Targums could find it ? Wehave never 
understood that the Targums are "worthy of more regard 
than the Greek version* * 

2d, If Gehenna, at the time this version was made, 
had begun to be used in the sense of a place of fu- 
ture misery, it is evident that this sense received no 
countenance from them as translators. It was not 
by them begun nor does their translation in any way 
tend to transmit such an opinion to posterity. We 
cannot even learn from it that such a sense was then 
given to the word Gehenna by any persons, far less 
that it was founded on divine authority. If Gehenna 
then had begun to assume this new^ sense, which Dn 
23^ 



260 AN INQUIRY INTO 

Campbell says is always and indisputably its sense 
in the New 1 estament, how is it accounted for that 
they take no notice of it? If this was its sense when 
the Greek translation was made, had not they as good 
a right to give it this sense as our English translators, 
when they made our present English version ? If the 
original and Scriptural meaning of the word was to 
be laid aside in translating, and an assumed sense of 
it on man's authority adopted by the latter, why not 
also by the former? Should it be said, "the Greek 
version is only of the Old Testament, and it is in the 
New that Gehenna always and indisputably means a 
place of endless misery for the wicked ;'' we reply to 
this by asking how the New Testament sense of Ge- 
henna comes to be so different from that of the Old ? 
And we ask, further, why Whitby and Parkhurst, 
quoted before, refer us to the Targums and not to the 
Old Testament for this new sense given to Gehenna ? 
We ask still further, how this new sense given to this 
word is ever to be reconciled with the facts we have, 
stated, or can be made to agree with the contexts of 
the passages in which it occurs? Besides, had men 
never heard of the Targums and only consulted their 
Bibles to learn what was the Scripture usage of this 
word, would they ever give it such a meaning? But 
what ought to set this matter at rest is, that neither 
the writers of the Apocrypha nor the authors of the 
Greek version used Gehenna in this new sense^ .and 
even the very writers of the Targums, we are refer- 
red to in proof of this sense, are allowed to have 
given us fables and false glosses of their own. Yea^ 
in the very passages in the Old Testament, where 
these glosses about Gehenna are given, no rational 
man would say that any thing in the passages warrant- 
ed them. 

3d, To whatever source then, this change in the 
sense of Gehenna is referred, which Dr. Campbell 



THE WORD GEHENNA, 267 

says was gradual^ it cannot be ascribed in any degree 
to the authors of the Greek version. Seeing then 
that they, as well as the authors of the Apocrypha, 
cannot be quoted as authorities for it, to what other 
source are we to be referred for this new sense of Ge- 
henna ? We do not see that it can be traced to any 
other source but the Targums. Should it then be 
found that it is used there in this sense frequently 
and explicitly, what would be the conclusion which 
any rational man would draw from this ? Would he 
conclude that Gehenna is a place of endless misery? 
No ; he would conclude that this is something which 
the writers of the Targupfis have added as a gloss of 
their own to the text of the Old Testament, for the 
authors of the Greek version found no such thing in 
the Old Testament when their version was made, nor 
did they think themselves warranted in adding any 
such glosses of their own* Either, then, the authors 
of the Greek version did wrong in not finding this 
sense of Gehenna in the Old Testament, when they 
mfide their version, or the Targums are not to be re- 
garded in having made this addition to the oracles of 
God. If we are to receive this addition of theirs, why 
not all their other additions, until the word of God is 
made by us as it was by the Jews, of none effect 
through our traditions? 



SECTION \ I. 



OBJECTIONS CONSIDERED^ 



There is not a't^uth revealed irt the Bible, against 
which, one opposed ^o it, may not start objections. It 
would, however, lie a mere waste of time, and a very 
trifling employment,- to answer every silly objec- 
tion w^hich might be made. All will allow^ thato6/ee- 
iions which are rafio^irt?^ and which affect the subject 
against which- they are to'oWght, demand an ans^ver^ 
Every objection which has occurred to myself, or has 
been suggested by others, of any weight against the 
views which have been advanced^ I shair now attempt 
to consider. These objections divide themseh^es into 
two classes ; pleOisible^ popular objections^ but which d& 
not bear against the argument which has been adduced^ and 
such as are supposed' to have some weight against the evi-* 
dence in support of that argument, 1 shall begin with 
the first of these. 

1st, One of the most popular objections which I 
t-hink can be stated, is, that my sentiments are of a 
licentious tendency* It is remarked, if you do away 
Gehenna or hell as a place of endless punishment for 
the wicked., what is left to deter men from the commission 
of every crime ? Indeed, say some, if I Relieved there was 
no hell^ I zvould indulge myself in all kinds of iniquity T 
Look, say they, at the loose principles, and still more 
loose morals, of the Universalists; and add, by way 
fOf triumph, who ever beard of a revival of religion 
^mongthem? It will be ^jjowed, that I have stated 



AN INQUIRY INTO THE WORD GEHENNA. 269 

this objection fully and fairly. It shall now be my 
business, as fully and fairly to meet it. 

1st, It is said, " if hell, a place of endless punish- 
ment is done away,, what is left to deter men from the 
commission of crime ?" In reply to this, I remark^-^ 
1st, Under the Old Testament dispensation, it is aU 
lowed, that the doctrine of hell torments was not 
known. Suffer me to ask, what was left then to de- 
ter men from crime before this doctrine had existence ? 
When these persons have told us, what was left in 
those days to deter men from crime without it^ we are 
prepared to inform them what can deter men in these 
days without it. And if this doctrine was not preached 
under the Old Testament to make men holy^ how came any 
then to he holy without it ? Did Adam preach the doc- 
trjne of hell torments to Cain to make him holy? Did 
Noah preach this doctrine to make the antediluvians 
holy ? Did Lot preach this doctrine to make the 
Sodomites holy ? Did Abraham even allude to this 
doctrine in his intercession with God, as an argument 
that they might be spared ? Yea, was the belief of 
this doctrine the cause of the holiness of Adam, 
Noah, Abraham, Lot, &c. &c.? Did the belief of 
hell torments make them holy in distinction from those 
who were unholy? If this was the cause of their 
being holy themselves, why did they not preach this 
doctrine to make their friends, neighbours, and in- 
deed all mankind, holy ? If this doctrine was believ- 
ed in those days, and was so well fitted as is suppos- 
ed, to prevent wickedness, why was it not preached? 
Surely Noah ought to have preached it to the people 
of the old world, when all flesh had corrupted their 
way upon the earth. He was a preacher of right- 
eousness, but 1 do not find a single hint given in his 
history, that he was a preacher of hell torments, to 
deter men from their licentious courses. Besides; 
why did not Lot preach it to the Sodomites to make 
23* 



270 AN INQUIRY INTO 

them holy? They were sinners before the Lord e^'-^ 
ceedingly, but I do not find that he believed this doc-- 
trine to keep himself holy, or preached it to others 
to deter them from licentiousness. Not a word is 
said, which would lead one to conclude that the ante- 
diluvians and Sodomites were all believers in the 
doctrine of universal salvation, and that this was the 
cause of their wickedness ; nor is a word dropped 
that Noah, Lot and others, believed in the doctrine 
of hell torments and that this led them to holiness. 

2d, If the doctrine of hell torments, is so well cal- 
culated to prevent sin, and promote holiness, why did 
not our Lord teach it to the Jews, who are allowed 
to have been a race of very wicked men ? Can any 
man believe, that by the damnation of hell^ our Lord 
meant a place of eternal misery, and that he thought 
it, like the objector, so well fitted to prevent licentious- 
ness, yet only mentioned it once to the unbelieving 
Jews? Did he think there was nothing left to pre- 
vent men from committing all manner of iniquity, and 
yet but once, and that in a discourse relating to the 
destruction of Jerusalem, say to them—" how can ye 
escape the damnation of hell?" It is not the easiest 
thing in the world for us to believe this. 

3d, It is an indisputable fact, that the apostles of 
our Loi"d, never said a word about hell to the Gen- 
tiles. We ask then, what they had left to deter men 
from the commission of every crime? If they knew 
that hell was a place of endless misery for the wick- 
ed, and thought it such an excellent antidote against 
licentiousness, why did they never make use of it? 
They must have either been ignorant of such a doc- 
trine, or very culpable in not preaching it, to deter 
men from crime ; or they did not consider it so effi- 
cacious as the objector imagines. The Gentile na- 
tions in the apostles' days, were very licentious. And 
k appears from chap. i. sect. 3. that they were also 



THE WORD GEHtoNA* 271 

believers in the doctrine of eternal misery in Hade^ 
or Tartarus, But we see that the belief of this doc- 
trine did hot turn them from their licentious courses. 
Nor did the apostles of our Lord think the preaching 
of eternal misery, either in Hades, or Gehenna, would 
effect this 5 for they do not say one word to them 
about punishment in either of those places. Let the 
objectoi' then account for it, if the apostles were of 
his mind^about this, why th^y did not preach this 
doctrine to prevent wickedness in their day. And 
let him account for it, why the Gentiles in believing 
it, should be so licentious. If the prophets, Jestfs 
Christ, or hh apostles, did not teach eternal torments 
in hell to promote holiness, ought not their doctrine 
10 be charged with a licentious tendency as well as- 
mine? There is no way of evading this, but by 
proving, that they did teach this doctrine to mankind. 
This we think never cart be done. If I am then to 
be condemned, how are they to be cleared ? And if 
their doctrine did not lead to licentiousness, how, in 
justice, can the views I have advanced be charged 
with it? I shall not feel much ashamed at being 
found in such company. These facts are sufficient ta 
put down this objection forever. Nor need we be 
alarmed that the doctrine will produce an increase 
of iniquity when the inspired writers never used the 
opposite doctrine, to check the progress of sin in the 
world. They had certainly something left to deter 
men from sin, and which they deemed so efficacious, 
as to supersede the necessity of the doctrine of hell 
torments. 

4th, Let us inquire, what that was, which they 
deemed sefficient without it. Paul says, " the good- 
ness of God," and not hell torments, leadeth men to 
repentance. It is "the grace of God," not hell tor- 
ments^ which teacheth to deny ungodliness and world- 
ly lusts. It is the " love of Christ," not hell torments, 



272 AN INQUIRY INTO 

which constrains nrien not to live to themselves but to 
the glory of God. All, who are acquainted with the 
Scriptures know, to what extent I might here refer to 
texts of a similar nature, showing the same thing ; 
but I forbear. Here then was the sovereign remedy, 
which they proposed, to cure a licentious world. If 
this failed, they had no other to propose. All other 
remedies which people have tried to effect it, have 
been like the woman, who spent her all on other phy- 
sicians, but rather grew worse. The love of God in 
the gift of his Son, is that, w^hich when believed, and 
its influence felt, constrains to love and to good works. 
Every thing else to efiect a cure without this, is only 
religious quackery, and this we deem the very worst 
kind of quackery. But 

5th, Those persons, who aver, that if the doctrine 
of hell torments be done away, there is nothing left 
lo deter men from the commission of every crime, 
must certainly think, that where this doctrine is taught, 
it greatly tends to prevent wickedness. I believe 
that this v^ill be strongly contended for. Is this then 
true? Can it be established by sufficient evidence? 
Has the preaching of hell torments to mankind, pro- 
duced such glorious effects, as such persons by the 
above objection would have us believe ? Our actual 
observation of its effects, we admit is very limited. 
But we have seen a little of it, at least in two quarters 
of the globe, and we think facts will warrant us to 
say, that hell torments, and heathenfsh morality have 
been preached to people, in many instances, until 
they have been preached into the grossest immorali- • 
ty. Was not this tried for ages among the Gentile 
nations, but did it turn them from sin to God ? No ; 
it was when the world by wisdom knew not God, it 
pleased God, by the foolishness of preaching, to save 
them that believe. Besides, our own actual observa- 
tion does not lead us to think, that where the doctrine 



T^f\ WORD GEHENNA* 273 

of hell torments is most preached, there the people 
are most holy, 

6th, But admitting that the preaching of hell tor- 
ments did deter men, in many cases, from the commis- 
sion of crimes,— .what opinion are we to form of the 
morality produced by such a cause? We do not en^ 
vy that parent, the respect and obedience which he 
receives from his wife and children, who obtains it 
from the fear of being cast into a furnace of fire I 
TJiis might do well enough for an eastern despot, but 
no rational man, far less the God of the universe, 
would think this true obedience or morality. We ven- 
ture to say that such a course, to produce obedience, 
either among men, or in regard to God, is as bad state 
policy, as it is false divinity. It shows as much ig- 
norance of human nature, as it displays a want of 
common humanity. In the preaching of Jesus Christ 
and his apostles, I do not find any attempts made to^ 
frighten men from their licentious courses into reli- 
gion, by terrific descriptions- of heil torments. They 
had so many more rational arguments to induce men. 
to obedience to God, than this, that they never made 
use of it. Had they deemed it of as much impor- 
tance as the objector thinks it, we have no doubt but 
that they would have preached it to the world. At 
any rate, he must first prove that they did preach thi& 
doctrine, before his objection is of any force. 

7th, The apostles' doctrine of salvation by grace, 
through faith, was denounced as leading to licentious- 
nesSi Let us sin, said the objector, because grace 
aboundeth. Now we should like to know how salva- 
tion, in this way to all, should be of a licentious na« 
ture, and not also to a few ? The truth is, the num- 
ber saved, can make no difference in the case. If the 
doctrine is licentious when extnnded to the whole hu- 
man race, it must be so though limited to a single in- 
dividual. But every one knows how the apostles re- 



274 AN INQUIRY INTO 

futed the objection. " Shall we continue in sin that 
grace may abound ? God forbid : how shall we that 
are dead to sin live any longer therein?" We repel 
the charge in the same waj^ But the persons who 
bring this charge against us, seem to think that be- 
cause no hell torments are prepared, that men are to 
go to heaven without any Saviour or salvation. We 
believe no such doctrine. On the contrary, we firm- 
ly believe that all who are saved, shall be saved from 
their sins, reconciled to God, and made meet for 
heaven. If there be any Universalists, who believe 
otherwise, we disown them, and would be glad to 
have them give up the name, until they have relin- 
quished such principles. But we never heard of any 
Universalists, who held the opinion that any persons 
went to heaven in their sins. No : in their writings 
and preaching they disclaim it, and consider it not 
very candid, nor honourable in their opponents, to 
bring such a charge against them. 

ShOuiu it i5e Said here, *'but whatever they pretend^ 
do you not see a great many who profess to be Uni- 
versalists, living very licentious lives?" We freely 
grant this, but if this is any argument against the 
doctrine, we think it is one which will prove a great 
deal too much. It will prove equally against the Con* 
gregationalists, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Uni- 
tarians, and in short, every religious denomination in 
the world. Do you not find many who profess the 
principles of all these different sects, who live licen- 
tious lives ? We are sorry to say that this is but too 
evident. But this kind of argument, would even prove 
the principles of the Bible itself to be licentious. Are 
there not many who profess its principles, who lead 
licentious lives? Yes, alas ! too many. But you 
will seldom find that the disciples of Paine or Vol- 
taire, are so uncandid, and reason so incorrectly as 
to conclude, that the Bible is of a licentious tenden- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 275 

cy in its principles, because many who profess them 
are very wicked men. But, say the objectors, those 
licentious persons who profess to believe the Bible, 
and of the above sects, do not understand the princi- 
ples that they profess. Granted. And why will not 
the objectors allow that many who profess to be Uni- 
versalists do not understand and believe the principles 
which they profess. If it is no reproach to the other 
sects to have such kind of professors, why should it 
be any reproach to the Universalists ? The fact is, 
such kind of professors are no honour to any denom- 
ination professing the Christian name, and we once 
heard of a sect of Deists, who would not have receiv- 
ed them into their community, for they would not ad- 
mit any immoral person among them. We are sure, 
the fact is too evident to be disputed, that wherever 
the eternity of hell torments has been published, and 
published too in all the horrors with which human 
eloquence could decorate it, and enforced with all the 
clerical dignity and civil authority that popes, priests, 
and kings could afford, it has not prevented wicked- 
ness in the earth. In my judgment it has produced 
immorality and other evil consequences, which hu- 
man nature, bad as it is, agrees to condemn. 

Should an appeal be made to facts, by compjiring 
the numbers of those who have lived licentiously^ 
embracing the various religious systems which have' 
been in the world, we are not prepared to admit that 
the balance of the account would be against Univer- 
salists. But admitting that it was greatly againsrt' 
them, all that this could prove, is, that their views 
tend more to licentiousness than the others. All these 
different systems produced it to a certain extent, but 
that of the Universalists was the most prolific. But 
such a mode of reasoning is false, for it is allowed 
that an argument which proves both sides of a ques- 
tion, cannot be a good one. The fact is, that persons 



276 AN INQUIRY INTO 

professing the very best principles, have led licentious 
lives. The grace of God has been turned into las- 
civiousness ; and, what good is there which men have 
not abused ? 

But, if even a greater proportion of wicked, licen- 
tious men were externally attached to the sect of Unt- 
versalists, we should not be surprised, nor do we think 
that this proves any thing against the doctrine I have 
stated. When our Lord was in the world, we are 
told, that— "then drew near unto him all the publi- 
cans and sinners for to hear him.'' Luke xv. 1. He 
was also called by his enemies-, of a Pharisaical spir- 
it, "a friend of publicans and sinners." Had our 
Lord preached to them the doctrine of hell torments, 
why were they so fond of hearing him, and why was 
he accused of being their friend? Certainly he said 
nothing to encourage them to continue in sin, but the 
very reverse; but we think it is equally evident that 
he did not preach the terrors of hell torments to turn 
them from their iniquities. If he did not preach this 
doctrine, there is as little wonder that sinners flocked 
to hear him, as that now a great many of similarxhar- 
acters should flock to the Universalists. TVe think, 
then, that, allowing a greater proportion of loose, im- 
moral people should be disposed to hear the preach^ 
ers who exclude the doctrine of hell torments from 
their preaching, the case is not surprising. It was so 
in the days of -^our Lord, nor is there any thing in the 
nature of the case but what might be expected. 

But it is said further, '^if 1 believed that there was 
no eternal punishment in hell, 1 would indulge myself 
in all kinds of iniquity." Little need be said in re- 
ply to this; indeed it does not deserve one. But as 
we must reply, we w^ould ask, is this person's holiness 
of that kind, without which no man shall see the Lord ? 
If it is we do not see but that God must hold up the 
torments of hell even in heaven, to prevent this per^ 



THE WORD GEHlENNA. 277 

son's becoming licentious there! When the stimulus 
of hell torments is rem^ved^ what is there to preserve 
such a person holy? Nothing: and even when thus 
prevented from licentiousness, what is his holiness 
good for? If it were not for his evil example in so- 
ciety we would say to him, — indulge in all manner of 
iniquity, for your wickedness will as soon bring you 
to heaven as your holiness. But further ; it is a very 
evident case, that the obedience of all such persons, 
is the obedience of a slave under the terror of the 
lash. Yea, it shows very clearly, that under all this 
h^^pocritical obedience, such persons are in love with 
sini, and nothing under heaven prevents their outward 
indulgence of it, but the fear of hell torments. In- 
deed, the objector openly avows, that if there was no 
hell, he would indulge his lusts without restraint. Ho- 
liness, for its own sake, he does not love. Holiness, 
from love to God, he knows nothing about. And in- 
stead of pursuing it because he finds it the way of 
peace and comfort to himself, or of any benefit to so- 
ciety, he confesses itto be a burden ; and, but for the 
terror of hell torments, he would prefer a licentious 
course of life. Can any' Universalist be a worse 
character than this ? and if there be a hell, can a man 
be found who is a more fit subject for its punishment^ 
The terror of hell torments is a common topic. It is 
held up in such a dreadful and terrific point of view, 
that we do not much wonder that the objector loses 
sight of every thing else, and thinks that all he has 
need to be saved from, is merely from hell torments. 
We must here indulge ourselves with a few remarks 
relative to this view of the subject. 

1st, To be saved from hell torments is all the ob- 
jector seems concerned about. This we fear is the 
case with too many. We are not much surprised that 
it is so ; for in preaching about hell, the chief thing 
held up to \'iew, is to be saved from such a dreadful 
24 



278 AN INQUIRY INTO 

place of punishment. This theme is so much dwelt 
upon, and this place is described in such a way, that 
the hearer's mind is wholly absorbed with it. To be 
saved from this dreadful place is, with him, the most 
essential part of religion. 

2d, The objector is constrained to practise self- 
denial, much against his inclination, to avoid the tor- 
ments of hell. If there was no hell he would indulge 
in all kinds of iniquity. But seeing that there is such 
a place, to avoid it, he restrains his inclinations. His 
holiness is the mere effect of fear. The man is chain- 
ed and in fetters and cannot act himself. Only let 
him loose from these, by assuring him that there iRe 
no eternal torments in hell, and he would be foremost 
in the ranks of licentiousness. 

3d, The objector has a very wrong view both of 
sin, and the salvation of Jesus Christ. He thinks sin 
a pleasant, good thing, if it were not for the hell tor- 
ments in which it must end. He plainly intimates 
that this is the chief, if not the only thing which pre- 
vents his present enjoyment of all the pleasures of 
sin for a season. Now nothing, we think, more obvi- 
ous from Scripture, than this, that sin is connected 
with present misery ; and that truth and holiness are 
productive of happiness. The ways of transgressors 
are hard, whilst wisdom's ways are ways of pleasant- 
ness, and all her paths lead to peace. A man that 
feareth the Lord, happy is he ; but though the wick- 
ed join hand in hand they shall not go unpunished. 
Licentiousness is inseparably connected with loss of 
health, reputation, and property ; besides all the pangs 
of remorse and mental agony to the individual. Ho- 
liness is connected with health, reputation, and tem- 
poral prosperity, in addition to peace and serenity of 
mind, which are worth every thing else the world 
can afford. But the objector does not think so ; for 
he ^eeras to think that a life of licentiousness is the 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 279 

most happy kind of life he could lead, and but for 
the dread he has of hell torments, would gratify eve- 
ry sinful lust and passion. But he has also a wrong 
view of the salvation of Jesus Christ. His mind is 
so much absorbed with the subject of hell torments, 
that he has no idea of being saved from sin, but mere- 
ly from such a punishment. Now the objector should 
remember that our Lord received the name Jesus^ be- 
cause he-should save his people from their sins. But 
does he find that he received this or any other name 
because he should save them from eternal torments in 
hell ? I do not find it once mentioned in the Bible, 
that Jesus the Saviour, is said to save any persons 
from hell. He came into the world to save even the 
chief of sinners. He came to save men from sin, 
from the course of this present evil world, from ig- 
norance, folly, crime, and death ; but no inspired 
writer ventures once to say that he came to save men 
from endless punishment in Gehenna or hell. But 
this view of Christ's salvation seems, in a great meas- 
ure, lost sight of: and with the objector and many 
others, is taken very little notice of, if they can only 
be saved from eternal punishment. 

But the objector says further, '' Look at the loose 
principles, and still more loose morals, of the Univer- 
salists; and adds, by way of triumph, whoever heard 
of a revival of religion among them ?'' As to the first 
part of this charge, we think enough has already been 
said, showing, that persons who understand the true 
principles on which the doctrine of Universal salva- 
tion is founded in Scripture, can neither be licentious 
in their principles nor morals. Such Universalists 
are no more accountable for the licentious principles 
and practice of all those who style themselves Uni- 
versalists, than Calvinists, Methodists, or any other 
sect, are for similar characters among them. The 
very same charge has been brought against other de- 



280 AN INQUIRY INTO 

nominations: and, at the present time, is urged with 
great zeal against the Unitarians, and indeed all who 
are not orthodox* 

As to the charge of loose principles^ we observe that 
this is a very loose way of speaking 5 for we may 
call any principles loose whicii do not exactly accord 
with our own. This is the kind of shot every party 
fire in their turn at each other, when they have noth- 
ing better at hand. Before we can determine any 
principles to be loose, we must first settle what are 
true Scriptural principles. The standard must first 
be established, before we can determine the princi- 
ples which deviate from it. The principles of our 
Lord and his apostles were counted loose by the Jews. 
Besides ; do we not find that every thing w^hich does 
not accord with the popular creeds of the day, brand- 
ed with this same mark, for party purposes ? / t the 
Reformation, the principles of the reformers were 
counted loose by the Romish church ; but these very 
loose principles which they advocated, are certainly 
a blessing to us in the present day. Indeed, what 
man since their day, who ever attempted to state any 
thing from his Bible, contrary to the popular belief; 
but has been obliged to submit to the same kind of 
scorn and obloquy ? Some of the principles advan- 
ced by those calling themselves the orthodox, in de- 
fence of the doctrine of the Trinity, in the present 
day, would have been deemed not only loose, but 
also heretical^ by the persons whose names are the ob- 
jects of veneration to the different sects of the day. 
Calvin would not now own many of those who call 
themselves Calvinists, because their principles have 
become so loose^ and differ so much from his. And 
we doubt if Hopkins w^ould not, like Calvin, disown 
many who call themselves Hopkinsians. Yea, Mr. 
John Wesley, if he was to rear his head from the 
tomb, would remonstrate, we think, with the Metho- 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 281 

dists, tnat they have become loose in their principleSj 
in not following up the system which he left them. 
And it is a notorious fact, that there is a falling off, 
in almost every sect, from the rigid systems which 
were originally given them by their respective found- 
ers. All sects of professed Christians have corrupted 
their way upon the earth, and are rather more loose 
in their principles than they once were. What can 
be a more loose principle than this, compared with 
ancient orthodoxy, that Jesus Christ mude an atonement 
for the sins of the whole world. Yet this loose princi- 
ple is now embraced pretty generally by not only 
Methodists, but Gongregationalists, Baptists, yea, by 
almost all sects of Christians. This loose principle, 
which formerly would have been considered universal 
salvation in disguise, is now advocated by the sects of 
the day, and what more loose principles they may 
yet adopt, it is not for me to say, or even conjecture. 
Such has been the rapid march of Scripture inquiry 
and investigation, that orthodoxy now is a very dif- 
ferent thing from orthodoxy twenty years ago. And 
what orthodoxy will be twenty years hence, time 
must develop. If Calvin was now alive, that which 
is the current orthodoxy, would be heterodoxy with 
him. He would disown it. 

Connected with this loose principle, another is now 
advocated — that the number which shall be sent to hell at 
last, to be eternally miserable, will not be a greater propor- 
tion of the whole human race, than the persons executed in 
any country are to the whole community. The man who 
should have broached such a loose principle as this, 
in former years, would not only have been detested 
in the religious world, but would have been burned 
as an heretic. We ask, how much more loose must 
those persons become in their principles, to be as 
loose as I am in mine ? They have not many steps 
to take to stand on my ground ; indeed, they have 
24* 



282 AN lN(iUIRY INTO 

got one foot on it already. If Jesus Christ made an 
atonement for the sins of the whole world, we really 
think that such persons might let all the world be 
saved. Why deny him the glory of saving all for 
whom he died? Must he die in vain for a number, 
and must they suffer eternally for the very sins for 
which he made atonement or reconciliation ? And if 
such persons have reduced the number which are to 
be eternally miserable to so few, why not let the Sav- 
iour\s triuQiph over sin and death be complete, in 
saving the whole ? If my principles are loose, the 
principles of such persons are far removed from old, 
rigid orthodoxy. The fact is, that nothing is easier 
than to call certain principles loose. The question 
with every man ought to be, are they true or false ? 
This suggests another — x\:ihat saith the Scriptures 2 To 
them I have appealed, and by their decision I am wil- 
ling to abide ; and shall feel grateful to the man who 
will show me my error, by an appeal to the same au- 
thority. The word of God correctly understood^ is true 
orthodoxy^ and no man's principles ought to be con- 
demned as loose^ until it is shown that the standard of 
truth does not warrant such principles. It will be al- 
lowed that men have gone beyond the Bible, in rigid 
. principles. This, present orthodoxy warrants me ta 
assert. It is the duty of orthodoxy to show that my 
principles are more loose than the Bible. 

As to the second part of this charge, made with 
such an air of triumph, — "Who ever heard of a re-' 
vival among the Universalists ?" W^e shall now at- 
tempt a reply. As w^e do not wish to hurt the feel- 
ings of any who may diiier from us about revivals of 
religion, v/e shall touch this point with as gentle a 
hand as possible. 

1st, If preaching the doctrine of hell torments pro- 
duces revivals of religion, it is not to be expected that 
any revivals of this kind could be produced among 



THE WORD GEHENNA* ^O J 

Universalists, for they do not preach it. That the 
preaching of eternal torments in hell, is one of the 
principal causes which produce revivals of religion 
in the present day, we presume will not be denied. 
None of the subjects of such revivals v/ould be deem- 
ed genuine converts, unless they not only subscribed 
to this doctrine, but confessed that they had seen 
themselves doomed to hell by God's word. Yea, 
some would even demand the confession of them, that 
they were willing to be damned, in order that they 
might be saved. 

2d, There were no revivals, arising from this cause, 
produced by the prophets, by Christ, or his apostles ; 
nor could they be produced, for they did not preach 
the doctrine of hell torments. We think no man will 
affirm that any revival of religion was produced, or 
so much as attempted by them, in preaching such a 
doctrine. They never used it as a means to alarm 
and frighten people into a profession of religion* 
They were never found running from house to house, 
terrifying men, women, and children by the most 
frightful descriptions of hell torments, until the whole 
community was in a religious ferment, and a reaction 
must take place from the mere want of being able to 
carry the excitement any further. Nor do we find in 
those days, what is too obvious in these, the different 
sects all on the alert, and exerting themselves in every 
possible way to secure the greatest number of con- 
verts to join their different churches. A man must 
shut his eyes very close who does not see through all 
this religious manosuvreing. 

3d, Deducting, then, all the religion produced by 
the preaching of endless misery in hell, which af)- 
pears in religious excitements, how much would be 
left with the subjects of it ? Such people's minds are 
lashed with the terrors of hell torments, into religion, 
or something that passes for it, and the fear of thi^<^ 



284 AN INQUIRY INTO 

punishment in a greater or less degree, operates upon 
them all the days of their lives. Should we hear of 
revivals among such persons any more than among 
Universalists, if this false doctrine, the chief cause of 
their production, was done away? We question this; 
for, as far as our observation has extended, the doc- 
trine of hell torments has been a constant theme in 
public preaching, and in private meetings, to work on 
the minds of the people. This we believe has been 
done even with children and others of weak minds, in 
a way, and to an extent, which men of common sense 
and prudence ought to avoid. But, let us consider 
what the Scriptural idea of a revival of religion is, 
and by what means it is produced. The Scriptural 
idea of a revival of religion, may be viewed in a two- 
fold light. 

1st, When true religion is revived among those who 
are already professors of it; w^hen they are stirred 
up to be more obedient to God, and lively in his ser- 
vice ; in obeying his commandments, and observing 
the ordinances which he has appointed in his word. 
2d, When persons, formerly irreligious, are convinc- 
ed of their sins, believe the gospel of Christ, and turn 
to the Lord. 1 presume no person, yea, the most 
zealous contenders for revivals of religion, would ob- 
ject to this statement.. 

Let us then consider how Scriptural revivals of re- 
ligion were produced. It will perhaps, be the best w^ay 
here, to refer to some examples of revivals of religion 
mentioned in Scripture* The first 1 refer to is, that 
which took place in the days of Ezra and Nehemiah, 
which may be seen at large in the two books in Scrip- 
ture of those names. What then produced this refor- 
mation or revival of religion in those days ? Was it 
by means of Ezra, Nehemiah, or any other person 
preaching the eternity of hell torments? Was it by 
working on the passions, and alarming the fears af 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 2B5 

people, and by every effort which they could make^ 
to overwhelm their understandings with terror? No 
man dare say this, who has ever read those two 
books. How then was this revival of religion brought 
about? It was by reading the Bible, and pointing out 
to the people, how far they had departed from what 
God had commanded in his word, and showing them 
that all their sufferings originated in this departure 
from God. This statement of the means by which this 
revival was produced we think no one will dispute. 
Nor will the man be found, who will venture to assert 
that preaching hell torments to the wicked had any 
share in effecting it. We should rejoice to see such 
a revival of religion among all professors of religion^ 
in the present day, from studying the Scriptures, to 
see how far they have departed from the law of the 
Lord. We trust we should not be wanting in giving 
it all the aid in our power. I pass over attempts 
made by Jeremiah, and other servants of the Lord, 
to produce revivals of a similar nature among the 
Jews, but without success. I only observe in passing, 
that they used similar means to effect it , as did Ezra 
and Nehemiah. But when those means failed, they 
did not betake themselves to the means, so efficacious 
in our day, to work on the passions of men, by preach- 
ing the doctrine of hell torments, to effect their pur- 
pose. 

A second instance of a revival of religion mention- 
ed in Scripture, is that in the days of John the Bap- 
tist. Was it produced by preaching hell torments ? 
John never used the word hell in all his preaching to 
the people. It was produced by preaching repent- 
ance, and pointing them to the Lamb of God, who 
was to take away the sin of the world. But the most 
extraordinary revival of religion, is that which took 
place at the day of Pentecost, and during the minis- 
try of the apostles. Now let all read the Acts of the 



286 AN INQUIRY INTO 

apostles, and see if they can find, in a single instance^ 
that any one of the apostles ever said a word about 
hell, or its eternal torments to produce this revival. 
Peter, on the day of Pentecost, is as silent on the sub- 
ject of hell torments, as if no such thing existed in 
the universe of God. He addressed the very men 
who had been the betrayers and murderers of the 
Lord of glory, but does he threaten them with the 
torments of hell, or even enforce his doctrine by any 
intimation that they were exposed to such a place of 
punishment ? And is not all the preaching of the apos- 
tles uniformly the same in regard to this subject? No 
working on the passions ; no attempt is made by them 
to terrify people into religion. One might with as 
much truth affirm, that an eruption of mount Vesuvius 
produced this revival, as that it was effected by 
preaching endless misery in hell ! Let men only 
preach as the apostles did, by declaring the glad ti- 
dings of forgiveness of sins through Jesus Christ, and 
many things which go by the name of revivals of re* 
ligion, would be at an end. As the means of revivals 
in our day are very different from those used by the 
apostles, so are the revivals produced by such means. 
The converts made by such means, instead of partak- 
ing of the meek, humble, and gentle spirit of Christ, 
become censorious, bigoted and dogmatical, and with 
reluctance will they admit that persons, who certain^ 
ly give as much evidence as themselves of Christiani- 
ty, can really be Christians. They get attached to 
their minister, and to their sect, and zeal for these is 
often mistaken for a zeal for God and his glory. 
Strong excitement of the animal passions, sometimes 
even to extravagance, is ascribed to the power of 
God, at work among the people. As to understanding 
and believing the gospel, of the grace of God, little is 
said, and as little perhaps, cared about. We think 
we may say to such persons, in their own language, 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 287 

•• who ever heard or read of such kind of revivals of 
religion among the apostles and primitive Christians, 
or who ever heard of their producing any kind of re- 
vival whatever by terrifying people with fearful de- 
scriptions of eternal misery ?" The course which the 
apostles pursued was open, manly, and dignified; and 
the doctrine they preached was glad tidings. of preat 
joy to all people. Their object was not to save men 
from Gehenna or hell, but from ignorance, idolatry, li- 
centiousness, and unbelief, and to instruct them in the 
knowledge and obedience of the one living and true 
God. But, the primary object of preaching in the 
present day, seems to be, to save men from hell ; to 
attach converts to some religious party, and enjoin on 
them to believe neither more nor less, all the days of 
their lives than is contained in the creed, which they 
subscribed to on their admission. 

No one will certainly construe what is said in the 
foregoing remarks, into a disapprobation of revivals 
generally ; but only of such^s are produced by terror. 
We maintain, yea, we advocate true Scriptural revi- 
vals of religion. We know of nothing which could 
afford us more heartfelt joy, than to see all parties in 
religfon, yea, all mankind, attending to the oracles of 
God, and sincerely searching them to know and obey 
all that the Lord hath commanded. In our remarks 
we have considered terror the principal means in pro- 
ducing revivals in the present day ; and to such., and 
such only., the preceding observations are intended to 
apply. Divest modern orthodoxy of this most pow- 
erful mean of producing religious excitements, and 
henceforth it would probably have as few revivals of 
religion to boast of, as Universalism itself. We know 
not, why the truth of God preached by Universalists, 
should not produce a real Scriptural revival of relig- 
ion, equally as when preached by others. Is it the 
particular medmm or manner of communication, that 



288 AN INQUIRY INTO 

is to give the word of God effect? Or is the power of 
the Lord exclusively confined to a certain class of 
preachers ? It is now, we presume, as it was in the 
days of the apostles, that the hord bears testimony to 
his own word^ and that Paul might plant and Apollos 
might water, but it was God who gave the increase. 
But if our memory has not deceived us, we have seen 
printed rules for bringing about revivals of religion, 
and some preachers have not hesitated to say that it 
was the people's own fault that they had not revivals 
among them. Yea, some have determined before 
hand, that they would^get up a revival, and have gone 
to work in their own way and accomplished it. All 
this we really think is without precedent or example 
in the history of apostolic preaching. 

It is objected, — " That this doctrine is a very pleasing 
doctrine to the world.'''' In reply to this objection, I 
would observe, 1st, That the first question to be set- 
tled is this; is it a true or false doctrine? The Bible 
must decide this, and to it we have appealed. Of 
what use can it be in determining whether a doctrine 
be true or false, to call it either pleasant or unpleasant ? 
To admit the truth of what is here asserted, what 
could it prove against the doctrine; and to deny it, 
what could it prove either for or against it? Such 
kind of arguments are generally used by such as have 
nothing better to urge ; yea, are too indifferent about 
what is truth, to give themselves the trouble to inves- 
tigate the subject. To ascertain the truth of any doc- 
trine, we have only, according to this objection, to find 
out if it is pleasant or unpleasant. -If it is pleasant, it 
must be false, and if unpleasant, it must be true. 
This mode of decision will indeed save a great deal 
of time and labour in reading and investigation; for 
who would put themselves to the trouble of these, 
when a decision can be made by so short and easy i^. 
process ? 



TRE WORD GEHENNA* 289 

2d, I might in my turn say, the opposite doctrine is 
a very harsh doctrine. Perhaps there is as much, if 
not more, force in this objection against it, than in the 
one against my views. If they must be false because 
they are pleasant, does it follow that the opposite 
must be true, because it is harsh? We should think it 
rather an argument against its truth. That the objec- 
tor's doctrine is not a harsh doctrine he has got to 
prove. The very saying that my doctrine is pleasant, 
implies that he is sensible that his own is harsh. We 
presume many have thought it so, who have been 
afraid to speak freely their minds on the subject. 
Yea, we doubt if any man can seriously meditate on 
the doctrine of eternal misery, and can truly say that 
it is a pleasant doctrine, influenced by religious 
prejudices, and overawed by public opinion, persons 
rather acquiesce in the doctrine, than feel convinced 
in their judgments, or satisfied in their minds about 
it. When they begin to reflect seriously on the eter- 
nity of hell torments, and compare it with the well 
known character of God, as a God of goodness, mer- 
cy, and truth, the mind is at a stand what conclusion 
to come to concerning it. They think the Bible 
teaches it, and therefore they must believe it, but 
with the character of God th^y are unable to recon- 
cile it. 

3d, The gospel of the grace of God is a very pleas- 
ing doctrine, and if the objection has any force 
against my views, it equally lies against it. It seems 
then that he has pleasing doctrines as well as the one 
1 have been stating, against which he cannot make 
his objection to bear. But why is this the case, for 
if the pleasant nature of any doctrine proves it false, 
why is it that he believes the gospel of God to be the 
truth ?— .It is certainly a very pleasing doctrine to hear 
that there is even a possibility that any of the human 
race will be saved. It is still more pleasing, that there 
25 



290 AN INQUIRY INTO 

is a probability that a great number of them will be 
saved. And we are at a loss to know why it should 
not be still more pleasing, if it can be proved, that 
all the human race will be saved. But while the two 
first of these will be admitted as pleasant and this is 
no argument against their truth, yet the last is con- 
sidered false because it is the most pleasant. Does 
the objector say, we know the two first are true but 
not the last. This Is the very point at issue to be 
proved, and the proof must be drawn from some oth- 
er source, showing the falsehood of my doctrine, thj^^n 
the pleasing nature of it. 

4th, If the pleasant nature of the doctrine, be a 
solid objection against its truth, the fewer saved the 
better, to prove the doctrine false, and the more 
agreeable, I presume, to the objector. We think, we 
may go further, and say, that the eternal misery of 
the whole human race, which would be precisely the 
reverse of my doctrine, is most likely to be the true 
one, according to this objection. Its being so harsh 
or unpleasant, then, shows it to be true ; and because 
it is so unpleasant this is the strongest evidence that 
it must be true. The fact is, there is no real argu- 
ment in the case before us. A false mode of reason- 
ing is adopted, and the world might end, before any 
thing conclusive could be made out relative to this 
subject. 

5th, The objector seems to think that the doctrine 
is pleasing, and the force of his objection to it arises 
from thinking that all are to be saved without a sal- 
valion from sin. This is his mistake not mine. Should 
lie say, this is the inference that many will draw 
from it, to go on in sin; I reply, I cannot help this, 
any more than the objector can, where persons draw 
inferences from his doctrine, to go on in the same 
course. Yea, I cannot help this, any more than an 
, apostle could, when persons urged as an inference 



THE WORD GEHENNA* 291 

from his doctrine, " let us sin because grace abound* 
€th." What doctrine is it from which men may not 
draw inferences to go on in sin? The only one that 
I can at present think of, is the doctrine of universal, 
eternal misery. Even this is not an exception, for 
the inference would be, " since at death we are all to 
be eternally miserable,— let us eat and drink, for to- 
morrow we die," If some have argued, — '' let us sin 
because grace aboundeth," perhaps others have also 
said,^ — '' fet us sin because eternal torments abound." 
6th, Is it not God's design that the gospel of his 
grace should be a pleasing doctrine to the world ? It 
is glad tidings of great joy to all people. We ask, 
does God mean to save the world by the preaching of 
un unpleasant doctrine ? We know of none better fit- 
ted to effect this, than the doctrine of eternal tor- 
ments in hell. Had the apostles preached this doc- 
trine, just as much as preachers do in our day, we 
should have been inclined to believe, that God meant 
to save men and to save them by the preaching of 
this very doctrine* But will any man affirm, that 
their preaching has any affinity to the sermons we 
hear in our day, so far as the doctrine of hell tor- 
ments is concerned ? The word Gehenna or hell, none 
•of their hearers ever heard them utter, if the New 
Testament is to be our Bible. The word hell is on 
the lips of all preachers, who believe this doctrine, 
so frequently, that one would think if they learned 
their divinity from the Bible, that it was full of it. 
The apostles never used the word hell in any sermon, 
but they seldom omit it. Whether my views be right 
or wrong, the following things are certain ; first, it 
w^as not God's design to save men in the apostles' day 
by preaching hell torments to them, for this they nev- 
er did : and secondly, it is also certain, that my views 
are more like those entertained by the apostles, than 
the sentiments preached concerning hejl torments by 



292 * AN INQUIRY INTO 

orthodox preachers. I put in therefore my claim for 
being more orthodox than they are in this, if apostol- 
ic preaching is a true standard of orthodoxy. 1 may 
add, thirdly, which seems also certain, that if it be 
God's design now to save men by preaching the doc- 
trine of eternal misery in hell, he has changed his 
mind, for this was not his design in the days of the 
apostles. I might add more, but I forbear. 

7th, If the objector is sincere in urging this objec- 
tion, that because the doctrine is pleasant it cannot 
be true, does it not fairly follow, that the more un- 
pleasant any doctrine is, the more certain is its truth? 
Upon this principle no doctrine ought to be more 
surely believed than the doctrine of eternal misery, 
for surely it is not a pleasant doctrine. All Univer- 
salists therefore, ought at least to believe the object- 
or's doctrine and for this very reason, because it is so 
unpleasant to them. But on the other hand, the ob- 
jector ought to believe their doctrine and for the very 
same reason, because their doctrine is unpleasant to 
him. By this mode of deciding what is truth, both 
doctrines are proved true, and the two ought to be- 
lieve each other's doctrine, and reject their own. But 
when they have done this, they must just reject the 
new doctrines they have embraced and receive their 
former ones for the very same reason ; for the doc- 
trines they have embraced respectively are pleasant, 
and those they now oppose are unpleasant. In short, 
it proves both doctrines true and both false at the 
same time. 

8th, But we may ask the objector, is it possible for 
any man to receive any doctrine until it appears pleas- 
ant to him ? We think this is impossible. A doc- 
trine may appear very unpleasant, and while it does 
so to any person, he will reject it. This we have a 
very good example of in the objector himself. The 
idea that hell is Eot a place of endless misery ap* 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 293 

pears to hicri an unpleasant, a dreadful doctrine, and 
hence he rejects it. And the doctrine of eternal mis- 
ery, on the other hand, appears, at least to him, a 
very pleasant doctrine, and consequently he receives 
it. Yea, let the objector try, if he can, to receive 
any doctrine until it appears pleasant. The doctrine 
of endless misery he has received, and we think it 
must appear to him, pleasant, whatever it may be to 
other people. We think he ought not to deny this, 
and sure we are, that we shall never envy him any 
part of the pleasure which it affords him, until we 
have altered our minds greatly on this subject. 

9th, If my doctrine be so pleasant as the objector 
says, how comes it to pass that it is not universally 
received ? Why is it even so much opposed ? Yea, 
w^hy is it opposed by the objector himself? So far 
from its being a pleasing doctrine to the majority, it 
is one which is generally condemned, AH sects are 
agreed to put it down, if possible. There is some- 
thing then in the doctrine, which renders it unpleas- 
ant. WHiat this is, it is not very difficult to perceive. 
This doctrine, certainly bears hard against the pride 
and self-righteousness of the human heart. It affords 
no room for one man to glory over another, as a par- 
ticular favourite of heaven. Some, yea many, mur- 
mur against the good man of the house, that every 
man should have a penny ; and like the elder son in 
the parable, are angry that the father should treat 
such prodigals with such kindness. They think there 
should be a hell to punish sinners in forever, and some 
have even gone so far as to say, if all men are to go 
to heaven, they do not wish to go there. So long as 
such a spirit prevails, there need be no wonder that 
my views of this subject should be hated and oppos- 
ed. The first thing such persons ought to do, is to 
consider the nature of the spirit they are of. Can 
such a spirit be the spirit of Christ ? 
25* 



294 AN INQUIRY INTO 

It is further objected " that this is a uery good doe^ 
trine to live hy^ hut it will not do to die 6^." — In answeF 
to this objection, let it be remarked, that this objection 
implies, that the doctrine of eternal misery, is a doc- 
trine which will do, both to live and die by. But that 
my doctrine can afford no hope nor comfort, neither 
in life nor in death. Or does it mean, that this doc- 
trine affords more of these, both in life and in death ; 
but that the other only affords a false and temporary 
hope and comfort in life, but no hope nor comfort in 
death ? Taking this to be the true sense of the words 
of the objector, we would then ask him, how he 
knows that his doctrine will do better to live by and 
die by, than the other ? We do not think he can 
make any possible reply to this but by saying, my^ 
doctrine is true and yours is false* Well, we hope he, 
or whoever urges this objection, will consider it a 
duty they ought to perform, to prove that my views 
of Gehenna are unscriptural. For 

Isty If they are true^ why will they not do to live 
and die by better than the opposite views, which must 
be false? The whole here depends on the truth or 
falsehood of my sentiments. If they can be proved 
from the Scriptures false^ I frankly confess that they ar& 
neither ft to live nor die by. Candour, in the objector, 
will certainly also grant, that if my sentiments are 
found upon examination true, his doctrine of eternal 
torments in hell^ is not ft either to liver or die by^ because 
it must be false* I contend that true doctrine, or in 
other words, the doctrine of the Bible, correctly un- 
derstood, is the doctrine which men can either live or 
die by comfortably. Error is not good for men, ei- 
' ther in life or in death. It is truth which gives true 
hope and joy to the mind, and it is truth which is a 
light to the feet and lamp to the path. The whole 
here depends on which of the two doctrines is the 
dgctrine of Scripture. While this remains undecided^ 



• tHE WORD GEHENNA* ^^B 

I have as good a right to say to him, as he has to me, 
your doctrine is a very good doctp^ine to live by, but 
it will not do to die by. Until the objector fairly 
meets the arguments, by which 1 have attempted to 
prove that Gehenna or hell is not a place of endless 
misery for the wicked, I might dismiss this and other 
objections of a similar nature. But 1 proceed* 

2d, The objector must allow, that if his doctrine 
is so good to die by, it is not very good to live by. 
He certainly cannot deny, that the doctrine of eter- 
nal torments in hell, is such as has given much dis- 
tress and misery to many, and many too, whom he- 
would not deny to be the excellent of the earth. We 
think he will not deny, that his doctrine does not give 
one half the distress and misery to the thoughtless 
and licentious, as it does to the more thinking, seri- 
ous, and exemplary part of the community. The 
former laugh, and dance, and play, and drive away 
all their fears of the punishment of hell torments. 
The doctrine only gives distress and misery of mind 
to the best and most valuable part of society, inclu- 
ding with others, such as we should deem Christians. 
These, and these almost exclusively, are the persons 
who are rendered miserable all their life-time by this 
doctrine. We think the objector will not deny, that 
instances have occurred, where persons of thinking 
and serious habits, have been driven to distraction 
and even to suicide by it. But was a case ever known,, 
where a person was so much distressed in his mind, 
and finally went deranged, or ended his days, because 
hell was not a place of eternal torment for a great 
part of the human race ? We have found a few, who 
would be very sorry, if my views could be proved 
true. This we have imputed to want of considera- 
tion, and a false zeal for a favourite doctrine, but we 
are under no apprehension, that if they are found 
true, they VvmII carry their zeal so far as to end theii^ 



^96 ^ AN INQUIRY INTO 

days in consequence of it. Is not my doctrine tnen 
better to live by, tUan that of the objector? 

3d, But if my views are such as may do to live by, 
but will not do to die by, how came it to pass, that 
persons could both live and die by them under the 
Old Testament dispensation ? It was not known in 
those days, that Gehenna was a place of eternal mis- 
ery for the wicked, yet all will allow, that many lived 
happy and died happy. It does not appear, from 
any thing which I have ever noticed in the Old Tes- 
tament, that persons then derived any hope or conso- 
lation either in life or in death, from the doctrine of 
eternal torment in hell ; nor, that it was any motive 
in producing obedience to God's commandments. We 
find no holy man of God in those days, urging the 
doctrine of endless misery on mankind, as a good 
doctrine to live and die by, and w^arning men against 
the opposite doctrine, as a dangerous error. Besides, 
how could the apostles and first Christians, either live 
happy or die happy, seeing they knew nothing about 
hell as a place of endless misery ? They knew noth- 
ing of this doctrine ; therefere let the objector ac- 
count for it, .why my doctrine will not do to live and 
die by now, as well as in the days of the apostles. 
What would the objector have done for this doctrine 
to live and die by, had he lived eighteen hundred 
years ago ? He cannot say that the apostles ever 
preached the doctrine of hell torments for any pur- 
pose; and far less that they preached it, as a good 
doctrine to live and die by. 

4th, But let us examine a little more particularly, 
what there is in the doctrine of hell torments, which 
is so much better fitted to live and die by^ than the 
sentiments which I have stated in the foregoing pages. 
The objection we are considering, is often used, and 
serves some on all occasions, when argument fails, 
in defending the doctrine of hell torments. When 



XHE WORD GEHENJ^fA• 297 

"hardly pinched to defend it, from some text which 
they thought clearly taught it, they cut the matter 
shortly off' thus, — '' Ah ! your doctrine may do very 
well to live by, but it will never do to die by.-' This 
brief sentence, perhaps uttered with a sigh or a groan^ 
answers in place of a thousand arguments with many. 
1 shall therefore give it more attention, than I really 
think it deserves. Let us then 

Consider the comparative merits of the two oppo- 
site doctrines to live by. The doctrine, or my doctrine^ 
that hell is not a place of eternal torment for all the 
. wicked, is barely allozoed to be a doctrine, which men 
mdLj possibly live by in the present world. Now, how 
Adam, Noah, Abraham, Lot, and others, made out to 
live by it, I do riot stop to inquire. I leave my oppo- 
nents to inquire, how they, and the apostles, and first 
Christians, yea, I may add Jesus Christ himself, suc- 
ceeded in living so well by it. When they have found 
out this, I can be at no loss to tell them, how I and 
others can live by it. But we pass over this, and 
wish to bring the comparative merits of the two doc- 
trines into notice, as best fitted to live and die by. 

1st, Then, let us attend to the doctrine of eternal 
misery, and its fitness to live by. If it indeed be bet- 
ter fitted for this purpose, it must be in the following 
things. 1st, As a ground of hope in respect to fu- 
ture happiness. But how any man can make the 
eternal torments of others in hell, a ground of hope 
to himself, I am unable to devise. If the eternal mis- 
ery of one human being affords the objector any 
ground of hope, the more doomed to this punishment 
then, so much greater the extent and solidity of his 
ground of hope. But as this is not likely to be the 
ground on which this is placed, I observe 

2d, Does it afford to such persons a more certain 
and sweet source of joy in this world than the oppo- 
site doctrine ? A man's joy must arise from the hope 



298 AN INQUfRY INTO 

ke has, whether that hope is well or ill founded. • Ifj 
then, the doctrine affords no ground of hope, it can 
be no source of joy to him. Besides; we have al- 
ways thought that Jesus Christ and him crucified, 
was both the foundation of true hope, and source of 
joy to people in this world. We never understood, 
that the certainty of hell being a place of endless mis- 
ery, was set forth in Scripture as the ground of hope, 
or source of our joy. The apostle, Gal. ii. 26. says : 
" The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the 
faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave him* 
self for me." But I ask, did the apostle ever say, 
that the life he now lived in the flesh, he lived by the 
faith that hell was a place of endless misery, either 
as a ground of his hope or source of his joy ? Or 
did he ever say, that Christ loved him and gave him* 
self for him, to save him from the punishment of this 
place ? He joyed in God through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, but I do not find that hell torments were a 
source of joy, either to him or to any one else. It 
could not be so ; for none of the apostles ever spoke 
of hell as being a place of endless misery. We then 
Bsk, how this doctrine can be to any a better doctrine 
to live by than mine ? When, or by wiiose authority 
did it become so eminently fitted to live by ? We ask 
further, in w^hat way is it better fitted to live by than 
mine, if the persons who profess it derive neither 
hope nor joy from it ? I ought to allow, perhaps, that 
it does afford a selfish joy to some, that they are se- 
cure from the torments of hell, while such multitudes 
are doomed to suffer its punishment forever. This, 
we presume, is all the joy which this doctrine affords, 
and we ought to call it any thing but Christian joy. 
But as neither of these are likely to be urged why 
the doctrine of eternal torments is better fitted to live 
by than mine, I observe 



^HE WORD GEHEN157A. 299 

3d, That it is considered better to live by than my 
doctrine, as it is a better preservative against a licen- 
tious life, and a more powerful motive to holiness. 
This, r presume, is the ground on which the doctrine 
of eternal misery is counted the best of the two to 
live by. Is this then true ? We think w^e have said 
enough in answering the first objection, to prove that 
it is not. We shall however add the following re- 
marks here, to show that it cannot be true. We ask, 
then. — Is love or lerro7' the most powerful principle to 
stimulate to a cordial and universal obedience ? Let 
both Scripture and every day's experience decide in 
this case. Will any man affirm that the obedience 
required of ns, and taught in Scriptvire, is (here held 
fortli as an obedience induced by the terror of bell 
torments? No; it is the obedience of o:ratitude and 
love. Terror may overawe, and frighten r<-on to com- 
ply with many things to which their he:^^ < . f^ total- 
ly averse. It is love w4iich swxetly -..r*- ■ rc>\ not 
only to external obedience, but to th(^ i/:,o<"^ j^; -^ of 
the heart and affections. But what doc^> ^ >;.\iiCnce 
and daily observation teach concerning this? Who, 
that is acquainted with the history of the world, or 
with human nature, will say, that terror of the most 
horrid punishments, has been. found efficacious in pro- 
ducing a cordial obedience in any grade or depart- 
ment of human society? So much are legislators 
and others convinced to the contrary, that in many 
places they are altering their code of laws, respect- 
ing the severity of human punishments. We then 
ask, in what respect the doctrine of eternal misery is 
|better fitted to live by than my doctrine, if it affords 
no hope nor joy to those who believe it, and is not a 
proper inducement to a holy life in the world? Let 
the objector point out, if he can, its preferable nature, 
and show wherein it consists. My doctrine is, that 
God never threatened men w^ith eternal torments in 



300 AN INQUIRY INTO 

hell, that he never made any such revelation to the 
world, but that he sent his Son to make reconciliation 
for transgressors and to save them from their sins. 
That this doctrine is better fitted to live by, as to 
hope, joy, and obedience, we should deem it a waste 
of time particularly to point out. If my doctrine be 
true, as to these things, compared with its opposite, it 
is like the joy of noon day, to the gloom of midnight. 
We think it will not be disputed, that if my senti- 
ments are Scriptural, all anxious fears about eternal 
misery are at once removed ; a foundation of hope 
and source of joy to men laid open, which are calcu- 
lated to animate and console the mind under every 
trouble of this world; and motives to gratitude and 
obedience to God presented, which the doctrine of 
eternal misery certainly does not afford. //, on the 
other hand, fills the mind with gloom and anxiety, it 
^leads to views of God not very favourable to his char- 
acter, nor much calculated to make men love and 
serve him. We may indeed hope in his mercy re- 
vealed in the gospel through Jesus Christ, and may 
have joy in believing that we shall escape the tor- 
ments of hell. But that the best of men have been 
still haunted with fears and anxieties, notwithstanding 
this, will not be denied. That this has been their 
state of mind, in regard to their own personal safety 
from hell, is what we might expect; but they have 
been also perplexed and distressed, as we think every 
good man must be, about the eternal condition of all 
their fellow creatures. We pity the man, who, if he 
thinks himself safe from this place of torment, feels 
little or no concern for the unnumbered millions of 
men like himself, all equally interested in the decis- 
ion of this all important question. 

Let us now consider how the doctrine of eternal 
misery is better fitted than my sentiments, to die by. 
This doctriue cannot be better than mine to die by^ 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 301 

from its being at this period a better preservative from 
sin, and a better motive to holiness to th-e individual, 
for he is just leaving this world, where this can alone 
operate as a motive to obedience. It must, then, be 
better to die by than mine. 

1st, As a ground of hope in death. Now we ask, 
what ground of hope it can afford to any man at death, 
to think that the doctrine ©f eternal misery is true? 
Can he look on his wicked wife, and still more wick- 
ed children, and neighbours, around him, in the hour 
of death, and make their eternal misery a foundation 
of hope for his own eternal blessedness? Can the 
certainty of their eternal misery afford him any cer- 
tain hope of his own safety? Can h^ die with a more 
joyful hope because their misery is to have no end ? 

2d, As a source of joy and consolation in death. 
But to which of the saints of old shall we refer, to 
find that the doctrine of endless misery to all the 
wicked, was any source of joy to them when about 
to leave this world ? Can any thing like this be found 
in all the book of God? What name ought even a 
joy of this kind to receive, if it was possessed ? But 
we do not thhik this doctrine does afford any joy in 
death to the person dying, either concerning himself 
or those he is about to leave. We rather think, that 
the doctrine at this hour, is often to the believers of 
it themselves, rather a source of pain and uneasiness. 
Should their hopes of heaven be such as to banish 
all fear for themselves, it often proves a source oi 
misery to them, in regard to the friends and relations 
they leave behind. This, we think, will not be dis- 
puted. Now, allowing that my doctrine is true and 
the objector's false, how different would be the state 
of mind in which people Vv^ould bid a last adieu to 
friends and relations, yea, to all the world. He and 
they must part, and truly such separations are often 
heart rending scenes. My doctrine, if true, it is ra^ 
26 



302 AN INQUIRY INTO 

sily perceived, is here a healing balm, for it is only a 
momentary, not an eternal separation. But the op-, 
posite doctrine adds pungency to every parting pang, 
and the only consolation it affords to the dying saint^ 
with regard to many of his relatives, is, that he shall 
have the pleasure of viewing from heaven, their tor- 
ments in hell forever. Let us suppose ourselves by 
the bed of a dying person, and hear him say that he 
was full of hope and joy, arising from his belief in. 
the eternity of hell torments ; and that in heaven the 
torments of his relations, friends and neighbours, 
would give him pleasure forever. I ask, what would 
we think of such a person? It would certainly be 
but charity to believe that he was disordered in his 
mind. If we did not, we should conclude that some 
evil spirit possessed him, and that in this state of mind 
he was very unfit for heaven. 

To conclude. We are either too blind, or too per- 
verse, to perceive how the objector can prove that 
his doctrine is a good doctrine, either to live or to die 
by. We should be glad to see it shown, if it can be 
done, how eternal misery in hell can be to any man 
a good doctrine, in life, or at death ; in time or in 
eternity. 

It is a very popular objection brought against my 
views of Gehenna,— " If you are correct, we must be- 
lieve that the most learned, and good men, yea, most 
Christians, for a great many ages, have been in a 
great error. Do you think yourself wiser than any 
of them ?" See some remarks in answer to this ob- 
jection, p. 197, 198. In further answer to this ob- 
jection, let it be remarked 

Ist, That I make no pretensions to superior learn- 
ing, or wisdom, or goodness, about this. I only pro- 
fess to have paid some attention to the Scriptures on 
this particular point, which those persons, taking the 
^subject for granted, have inadvertently overlookedf 



THE WOUD GEHENNA. SOS 

This all men are liable to. So far from thinking my- 
self more learned, wise, and good than those men, I 
sincerely think the very reverse. It will be granted, 
that no man is perfect in knowledge. And it will be 
seen, that those learned and good men from whom I 
differ, very unfortunately took it for granted that Ge- 
henna Teas' a place of endless misery for all the wicked^ 
Had they not done this, but as I have attempted to 
do, examined into the truth of this doctrine, they 
would have given a very different account of Gehen- 
na or hell, from what they have done. From their 
superior learning, talents, and means of information 
to which I have no access, they would have placed 
this subject in a much more luminous and convincing 
light. Were those very men alive, they would be the 
last men, who would blame me for my inquiry on this 
important subject. 

2d, This objection was urged at the Reformation 
against the reformers, and indeed m^y be urged 
against all reformation and increase in knowledge to 
the end of time. It will serve a Jew, a Mahometan^ 
or a Pagan, as well as a Christian. If it has any 
weight against me in the present case, it is. equally 
strong against every man, who advances any thing 
from his Bible, contrary to what learned and good 
men have believed in past ages. Those very men 
whom I am blamed in differing from, were blamed in 
the same way, in dissenting, in some things, from 
learned, wise and good men who preceded them. 
They did not scruple to dissent from, or go beyond 
those who went before them, and assigned their rea- 
sons for so doing. And why should not we do the 
same thing? If this is not done, knowledge would 
be perfectly stationary, and an end is put to advance- 
ment in Biblical knowledge and improvement in eve- 
ry thing else. Had the reformers regarded such ob- 
jections, urged in their day, and all others since, we 



304 AN INQUIRY INT® 

Bad been at this day all good Catholics, or perhapiv 
idolaters, worshipping the works of our own hands. 

3d, So long as such learned and good men^ are al- 
lowed to be fallible men, k must be admitted, that 
they may have been mistaken^ We o-ugbt not to re- 
ceive their opinions about Gehenna^ or an-y other doc- 
trine, without examination. We ought to bring them 
to the Bible for triaJ, and be satisfied, that they are 
not the mere opinions of men, but the faithful sayings 
©f God. This I have don^e, with respect to the com- 
mon opinion entertainexl aboiu hell, and 1 request ev- 
ery man to try what I have advanced,, by this infal- 
lible standard. If those menhav^ been mistaken, it 
is certainly high time that the mistake wa^cm-rected. 
If they are correct, and the common opiiMon^coiK:ern- 
ing hell or Gehenna be true^ much good must result 
from the present discussion, in leading men to exam- 
ine more carefully, the ground on which their faith is- 
built. It will not be denied, that a great many who- 
are believers in the doctrine of hell torments, have 
received this doctrine by tradition from their fathers, 
without any personal and Scriptural examination of- 
it for themselves. 

4th, In other cases it is allowed, that those learned 
and good men, lived and died in many errors, and 
some who may bring this very objection against me, 
take the liberty to dissent from their opinions in oth- 
er things. Why may they not have been in an er- 
ror in thinking that Gehenna was a place of endless 
misery ; and why have not I as good a right to dis- 
sent from them in this, as some have done in other 
things ? All we wish is, let the subject be impartially 
examined, and truth will be brought to light by the 
investigation. Can any Calvinist, Hopkinsian, Bap- 
tist, or Methodist, urge such an objection with a good 
grace, when they all, each in their own way, dissent 
tVonoi the doctrines of so many learned, wise and good 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 305 

men, who lived before them ? Before they open their 
lips against me, let them return to the doctrines of 
their forefathers, and confess how greatly they have 
departed from the good old way. But each of these 
sects thinks, that their departure from the doctrines 
of their fathers, is a nearer approach to the doctrine 
of the Bible. This is just what we think concerning 
the departure we have made, from their views of hell 
or Gehenna. In proportion as we have receded from 
them, we think we have approached the truth in the 
Bible concerning this subject.. 

If we are to believe just as learned and good men 
have taught in past ages, many things now most sure- 
ly believed, must be renounced, for men have very 
greatly departed from their views of many Scripture 
doctrines. You hear men every day call themselves 
Calvinists: but Calvinism now is a very different 
thing from what is found in the works of John Calvin* 
You also hear of orthodoxy, but orthodoxy is not 
the same now that it was twenty years ago, and what 
is true orthodoxy in America would not be orthodoxy 
in Scotland. The truth is, men are beginning to search 
the Scriptures for themselves, and are taking the lib- 
erty to dissent from their fathers, however learned, 
or good they may have been^ The Reformation was- 
the dawn of day, after the long night of ignorance 
and superstition. But were the reformers to rise from 
the tomb, who were chiefly engaged in it, they would 
be surprised to see some good, and wise, and learned 
men, contending that we must advance no further, but 
must sit down satisfied where they left us. Happy 
for us, that we live in an age and in a part of the 
world, where it would not be in the power of man ta 
stop the tide of inquiry and investigation. 

Another popular objection against my views of Ge- 
henna, is thus stated — '' Supposing, that the evidence 
you have produced, showing that Gehenna is not. a. 
26* 



30G AN INQUIRY INTO 

place of endless misery for the wicked, to be almost^ 
if not altogether, conclusive, yet allowing a hdirepos- 
sihllity^ that the opposite doctrine may be true ; those 
who believe it, though in an error, are still on the 
safest side. They can lose nothing if your doctrine 
be true, but you may lose both soul and body for- 
ever, if theji- doctrine is truc.'^ I have stated this 
objection with all the force 1 could give it. It is pre- 
dicated on a mere possibility^ that the doctrine of hell 
torments maybe true^ and that in face of evidence, al- 
lowed to be almost, if jiot altogether, conclusive, in 
proving the opposite doctrine true. We shall offer a 
few brief remarl« in reply. 

1st, If there be any force in this objection, it is cer- 
tain that we ought not to be regulated in our belief or 
disbelief of any doctrines, by evidence or the degree 
of evidence, which may appear in their support. No ; 
this has nothing to do in leading us to believe one 
doctrine, and reject its opposite for want of evidence ; 
for. though it is allowed, that the evidence adduced is 
nearly conclusive that Gehenna is not a place of end- 
less miserj?", yet all this evidence is nothing, and w^e 
must still go on believing that it is, on the mere possi- 
bility oi its being true, unsupported by evidence* 

2d, Whether my viev/s of Gehenna or hell, or the 
commonly received doctrine about it, be the truth, 
one thing is certain ; every Scriptural doctrine must 
have evidence to support it. Evidence is the crite- 
rion of truth ; nor can a man be said to believe any 
doctrine, farther than he understands it, and perceives 
the evidence of its truth. Where the evidence, for 
or against any doctrine is equally balanced, the mind 
is in doubt, and suspense prevails, until some addi- 
tional evidence appears, which leads the mind to pre- 
ponderate to the one side or the other. This is the 
natural course of every candid mind, in serious search 
nfter what is truth. But here, though the evidence. 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 307 

adduced that Gehenna is not a place of endless mis« 
ery, is allowed to be nearly conclusive, yet the mind 
must preponderate to the opposite side. it is not 
even allowed to hang in doubt, and suspend judgment 
until further evidence shall appear, but must come to 
the conclusion, that eternal misery is true, on the 
mere ground that after all it may possibly be true. 
The mind must come to the very opposite conclusion 
of that to which the evidence before us leads. A 
mere possibility, thrown into the one scale, far out- 
weighs all the evidence we have adduced, in the oth- 
er. This is not the course a candid mind pursues in 
considering the comparative weight of evidence. If 
the importance of the subject, demands scrupulous 
care in coming to a decision, the evidence on both 
sides is subjected to a strict examination, and further 
evidence is eagerly sought after, to remove doubts 
and decide with certainty on the subject. But this is 
not the course we must pursue on this subject, if this 
objection is to be regarded* Should doubts remain, 
arising from lack of evidence, that my views of hell 
or Gehenna are true, or that the evidence which I 
have adduced is considerably weakened by the evi^ 
dence on the other side, all 1 wish is, let the subject 
be more carefully examined. But I enter my pro- 
test, against shutting our eyes to the evidence which 
has been produced, and still profess to go on believ- 
ing an old popular doctrine, upon the mere possibility 
that it may be true, without producing evidence on 
the other side. Had such a course been pursued, or 
had such objections as this and others been allowed 
at the Reformation, we had to-day been in darkness 
which might be felt. 

3d, But the objector in this objection has reduced 
the subject of discussion to a mere profit and loss ac- 
count, as to our different views of hell or Gehenna, 



308 AN INQUIRY INTO 

and that on the supposition that his views may possi- 
bly be true. Let us examine how this account stands. 

1st, Then, let us attend to his side of this accouM^ 
It stands thus : The doctrine of eternal tormeiit in 
hell, m3.y possibly^ after all, be true, and if true; I may 
in consequence of embracing this error, lose my soul 
and body forever. Such is the loss with which I am 
charged in his account. It is a loss which cannot be 
exceeded, by saying any man has lost more than this.. 
It is certainly of such a nature, as no man who was 
not determined on his own everlasting misery would 
on any consideration run the least risk about. No 
language under heaven has a word to express my fol- 
ly and madness in avowing such sentiments if they 
are not true. I certainly must then have the credit 
of being a sincere believer of the sentiments I have 
advanced relative to this subject, whether true or 
false. 

But, how is this account proved against me to be 
true ? I deny that the entry is true, or that the ac- 
count of loss charged, can be proved. Is it the be- 
lief that hell is a place of endless misery, which saves 
any man ? And is it unbelief in this doctrine which 
damns any man to this punishment ? Here seems to 
be one radical mistake of the objector. He seems 
to think that if his doctrine is true, all who have not 
believed it, must suffer this punishment for not believ- 
ing it. But if this was true, he would send all the 
ancient prophets and saints to hell. He would also 
send all the apostles and first Christians to hell. Yea, 
he would not exempt the Saviour himself, for he nor 
any of those persons seem to have believed his doc- 
trine. If their unbelief of it does not involve such 
an awful and solemn loss to them, how can it to me? 
Placing, me in his account, in such company, I shall- 
not feel much alarmed ; yea, he will be obliged to add 
tjo our company,, all the Universalists, and all who 



THE WORD GEHENNA, 30^ 

have doubted of the truth of his doctrine, and a mul- 
titude which no man can number, who have in their 
hearts disbelieved it, but who were not honest enough 
to avow their convictions. He perhaps may be obliged 
lo add even himself, for a belief founded on a mere 
possibility that the thing believed, is true, is surely not 
far from unbelief concerning it. 

But the objector labours under a mistaken notion 
as to what saves* According to him it is the belief of 
the doctrine, that hell is a place of endless misery. 
It is not the belief of this which saves men from hell 
©r from any thing else. Jesus Christ is the Saviour, 
and it is the gospel or glad tidings of God's grace or 
favour through him, that saves men from every thing 
they need to be saved from. Nor would the obje^E- 
tor undertake to defend, that a man who believed the 
gospel, and showed his faith by his works, would be 
damned if he did not also believe the doctrine of end- 
less misery in hell. Would be not pause a moment^ 
before he, with one indiscriminating sweep, sent all 
to hell who have not believed his doctrine? This 
charge must then be cancelled from his side of this 
account against me. The objector may take his 
choice, either to do this, or with me to.consign proph- 
ets, apostles, and inuumerable others over to eternal 
misery. 

2d, Let us now examine my side of this account 
against the objector. My loss is the loss of both soul 
and body forever, if his doctrine is at last found true. 
But if my doctrine is true he loses nothing. It is 
freely granted, that if my doctrine is true, that nei- 
ther the objector nor any other man, loses soul and 
body forever. But because these are not lost, does 
it follow, that he loses nothing? We think that this is 
another very considerable mistake of the objector, 
which requires to be corrected in hfs account. Is it 
then no loss to a man that he lives all his days, and at 



310 AN IN<^UIRY INTO 

last dies in a very great error, though that error doeb 
not involve him at last in eternal misery? Is it no loss 
to him, that his error gives him very wrong views of 
God's character, and his designs by the salvation of 
his Son. Does it make no difference to him, as to 
profit or lossy ta look on God as dooming a part, and. 
by some the greater part of mankind, to inconceiva- 
ble and endless misery, and being persuaded that God 
never threatened one of the children of men with 
such a punishment? Is it nodifference to him whether 
he spend his days in the certain and joyful hope of 
heavenly happiness, and that without any fears and 
anxieties about eternal misery, or live under fear and 
anxiety all the days of his life, and with fear and 
trembling, as to his future destiny, give up the ghost? 
And allowing him free from all such fears and anxie- 
ties as to his own future happiness, is it no loss to him 
to be denied the same hope and comfort of mind as 
to all his fellow creatures ? In one word, does he suf- 
fer? no loss by such wrong conceptions of God's char- 
acter, which mar his own peace and comfort, and 
involve so many of his fellow mortals in endless mise^ 
ry ? Such is a brief statement of the objector's losses. 
I leave the reader to enlarge it, which may easily be 
done to a much greater amount. Can he now say 
that he loses nothing, admitting my doctrine to be 
true, and his own to be false ? 

We are now come to the second class of objections, 
which are supposed to have some weight against the evidence 
which we have adduced to show that Gehenna is not used 
to express a place of endless misery* These we shall at- 
tempt to consider, without much regard to the order 
in which they are brought forward. 

It has been objected, that a very great change took 
place in the language of the Jews during the captivity in 
Babylon^ and that it zvould be wrong to interpret words 
in the New Testament according to the sense which they 



THE WORt> GEHJENNA. 313 

^lave in the Old* It has been thought that during the 
captivity^ the Hebrew language ceased to be vernacular 
among the Jews^ and that they brought back from Babylon 
the Chaldaic instead of it. This has been urged against 
the views we have given of Gehenna, and in favour ox 
its meaning a place of endless misery. In reply to 
this, it ought to be noticed, that the supposed fact on 
which this objection is founded, is disputed by th6 
learned. Mr. Parkhurst, in his Lexicon, on the word 
Ebrais^ p. 181. thus writes :-— '' A strange notion orig- 
inally derived from the Jewish rabbins, the descend- 
ants of those who crucified the Lord of Life, hath 
prevailed, and is but too generally received, that, 
during the Babylonish captivity, the Hebrew lan- 
guage ceased to be vernacular among the Jews, and 
it is pretended that they brought back the Chaldee 
or Babylonish, instead of it; and, in consequence, 
that the language commonly spoken in Judea in our- 
Saviour's time was not Hebrew, but Syriac, or Syro- 
Chaldaic. But 

" 1st, Prejudice apart, is it probable that any peo- 
ple should lose their native language in a captivity of 
no longer than seventy years continuance ? (Comp^ 
Ezra iii. 12. Hag. iii. 2.) And is it not still less 
probable that a people so tenacious of their law as 
the Jews, should yet be so negligent of their lan- 
guage, wherein-that law, both religious and civil was 
contained, as to suffer such a loss, and exchange 
their mother tongue for that of their detested and 
idolatrous enemies; especially since they had been 
assured by the prophet Jeremiah, chap. xxv. 11, 12* 
xxvii. 22.; xxix. 10. (comp. Dan. ix. 2.) that after 
a captivity of no more than seventy years they 
should be restored to their own land? But 

" 2dly, It appears from Scripture, that under th& 
captivity ihii Jews retained not only their language, but 
their manner of writing it, or the form and fashion of 



315 AN INdUIRY INT# 

their letters. Else, what meaneth Esth. viii. 9. where 
we read that the decree of Ahasuerus, or Artaxerxes 
Longimanus, was written unto every province accord- 
ing to the writing thereof, and unto every people after 
their language, and to the Jews according to their writ- 
ing and according to their language? (Comp. Esther i. 
Ezra iv. 7.) And let it be remarked, that this de- 
cree was issued, according to Prideaux, Connect* 
part i. book 5. ^rei/€«r5 af/er Ez-ra had obtained his 
commission for his return to Jerusalem witJi those of 
his nation, of which see Ezra vii. 

'^3dly, 'Ezekiel, who prophesied during the cap* 
tivity, to the Jews in Chaldea, wrote and published 
his prophecies in Hebrew,' Leland's Reflections on 
lord Bolinbroke's Letters, p, 229, 3d edit, where see 
more. 

" 4thly, The prophets who flourished soon after ih^ 
return of the Jews to theirown country, namely Hag- 
gai and Zechariah, prophesied to t4iem in Hebrew, 
and so did Malachi, who seems to have delivered his 
prophecy about an hundred years after that event. 
Now if Chaldee was the vernacular language of the 
Jews after the captivity, what tolerable reason can 
be assigned why those inspired men addressed^ not 
only the priests and great men, but also the body of the 
/>6op/e, in Hebrew, and did not, as Daniel and Ezra 
have sometimes done, use the Chaldee language? It 
is, I think, by no means sufficient to answer, with bish- 
op Walton, that they did this because the rest of the 
sacred books were written in Hebrew; for if there 
were any force in this reason, it would prove that 
Daniel also and Ezra ought to have written in Hebrew 
only* 

" 5thly, Nehemiah, who was governor of the Jew^ 
about a hundred years after their return from Baby- 
lon, not only wrote his hook in Hebrew, but in chap. 
xiii. 23, 24. complains that some of the Jews, during 



THE WORD GEHENNA, 31 S 

liis absence, had married wives of Ashdod, of Am- 
mon, and of Moab, and that their children could not 
speak n'lin', the Jews'' language^ but spake a mixed 
tongue. Now nmn*' is Hebrew, as appears from all 
the other passages in which it occurs, viz. 2 Kings 
xviii. 26, 28. 2 Chron. xxxii. 18. Isai. xxxvi. 11, 
13. But how impertinent is the remark, and how 
foolish the complaint of Nehemiah appears to be, that 
the children of some Jews, who had taken foreigners 
for wives, could not speak pure Hebrew^ if that tongue 
had ceased to be vernacular among the peop/e in gen- 
eral a hundred years before that period? 'So that (t& 
use the words of the learned Spearman, to whom I am 
greatly indebted in the above observations,) this very 
-fex^ of Nehemiah, I think, refutes the received suppo- 
sition of the Hebrew being lost in the Babylonish cap- 
tivity.' 

" 6thly, It is highly absurd and unreasonable to 
suppose that the writers of the New Testament used 
the term Hebrew to signify a different language from 
that which the Grecizing Jews denoted by that name; 
but the language which those Jews called Hebrew 
after the Babylonish captivity, was not Syriac or 
Ghaldee, but the same in which the law and the 
prophets were written. This appears fj^om the pro- 
logue to Ecclesiasticus, which, according to Prideaux, 
was penned by the grandson of Jesus about 132 years 
before Christ ; for be there observes, that 'the same 
things uttered in Hebrew and translated into another 
tongue, have not the same force in them; and not 
only these things (this book of Ecclesiasticus) but the 
Taw itself, and the prophets, and the rest of the books 
have no small difference, when they are spoken in their 
own language,"^ 

''Lastly, It may be worth adding, that Josephus, 
who frequently uses the expressions rr,v 'EBPAIHN cf'/iji- 
^^kIov^ y\oor7ocv t^v 'EBPAIXIN, ^EBPAtSTJ, for the language 
27 



314 AN INQUIRY INTO 

in which Moses wrote (see inter aL Ant. Ifb. i. cap. i, 
§1,2. comp. lib. x. cap. i. § 2.) tells us, De Bell. lib. 
vi. cap. ii. § 1. that towards the conclusion of the siege 
of Jerusalem he addressed not only John, the com- 
mander of the Zealots, but roig aroAAo/^-, the (Jewish) 
multitude^ who were with him, 'EBPAVZXIN in the Hebrew 
tongue^ which was therefore the common language of 
the Jews at that time, i.e. about forty years after our 
Saviour's death. Comp. Ant. lib. xviii. cap. vii. 
§10. 

"On the whole, 1 conclude that the Jews did not 
exchange the Hebrew for the Chaldee language at the 
captivity, and that the terms 'Eff^iV, 'EQ^uiKog/ESguis'h 
in the New Testament, denote, not the Syriac, or Sy- 
ro-Chaldaic, but the Hebrev/ language, commonly so 
called ; though I readily grant that this language, 
especially as it is spoken by the Galileans (see Mark 
xiv. 73. Matth. xxvi. 73. and under ToLKiKociog^) had 
in our Saviour's time deflected from its ancient pu- 
rity, as particularly appears, I think, from the words 
a6€^, AjcgA^<X|Ui*, Boavefres"^ roArofiat, which see in their 
proper places." 

We give this just as we find it, and leave those who 
choose to investigate the subject to determine it. But 
in whatever way this point is determined, we are un- 
able to perceive its bearing against the views we 
have advanced about Gehenna. Admitting that a 
great change took place in the language of the Jews 
during their captivity, if the Jews by this word did 
not understand a place of eternal misery from their 
Scriptures before they went to Babylon, yet under- 
stood it so after they returned, it follows, that this no* 
tion was learned during the captivity. This we think 
is no honour to the doctrine, nor is it authority for a 
moment to be regarded. However great the change 
of language of the Jews was during the captivity, we 
think it has been proved that our Lord uses the term 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 315 

Gehenna in the sense it was used by the prophet Jer- 
emiah, as an emblem of temporal calamities. Until 
this is disproved, and it can be established that this 
change of the Jewish language gave such a different 
sense to this word as the objector supposes, it does not 
deserve a serious consideration. 

' But though the idea of a place of future misery- 
was learned by the Jews from the heathen, yet their 
giving it the name Gehenna was of a later date. This 
1 think is evident from considering that neither Nehe- 
miah, Ezra, nor any Old Testament writer, after the 
captivity, ever speak of this doctrine, nor apply this 
word to it. The fact is, that whatever change, either 
the ideas or the language of the Jews underwent in 
Babylon, there is no proof to be derived from the Old 
Testament, that Gehenna was changed in sense from 
being an emblem of temporal punishment, to being 
made an emblem of endless misery. We presume no 
person will pretend, that any proof can be produced 
of this. Let us then be informed upon what rational 
and Scriptural grounds this term was so differently 
understood by the inspired writers of the New from 
those of the Old Testament. There must be a con- 
scious lack of evidence, to urge the change which the 
Jewish language underwent in Babylon, as any proof 
that our Lord used the term Gehenna to express a 
place of endless punishment for the wicked. It is 
rather exploding the doctrine than proving it, to have 
re'course to such means in establishing it. 

It has been urged as an objection — that though the 
Targums are not good authority to prove any doctrine^ yet 
they are sufficient testimony in showing in what sense Ge- 
henna was used among the Jews^ about our Saviour^s time^ 
and it is evident from them that it expressed a place of end- 
less misery. It is readily allowed, that their authori- 
ty is good in proving, that the Jews at that period did 
ese Gehenna to signify such a plaee of punishment^ 



$16 AH^ INQUIRY INT© 

but is it good in proving tJiat they understood it in na 
other sense themselves ; or that the Saviour used it 
to signify such a place of punishment? It is very evi-' 
.dent that the Jews could not understand it always iri 
this sense nor could they when they read the Old 
Testament Scriptures, It is difficult to perceive how 
they could put such a sense on this word, even iii 
those passages in Jeremiah where the prophet threat- 
ens their nation with severe temporal punishment un- 
der the emblem of Gehenna^ How they understood 
it when they read the Scriptures is one thing, and 
how they used it in common discourse, and in making 
all the Gentiles fit fuel for the fire of hell is another. 
If they gave it such an application, this is no proof 
that our Lord used it in the same manner. If they 
learned the notion, that Hades was a place of endless* 
misery, among the heathen, and applied the term Ge- 
henna to it, jeBj consigned over all the Gentiles to 
its punishment, does this prove that our Lord either 
adopted this notion of theirs, or used Gehenna in this 
sense? That he should adopt this popular sense of 
the word, is far from being probable, and that he used 
it as Jeremiah had done, as an emblem of temporal 
punishment, we think has been proved. Can any 
man reasonably believe, that our Lord should use 
Gehenna or hell in a sense seemingly invented out of 
enmity to the Gentiles, and lay aside its use in the 
Old Testament ? Besides; and what ought to settle 
this question, the apostles so far from making the 
Gentiles or any others fit fuel for hell fire, never used 
the word in speaking to them or about them. 

It is further objected ; — admitting^ say some, all that 
you have advanced about Gehenna or hell to he true^ yef 
the doctrine of eternal misej'y to the zoicked can be estab- 
lished from other parts of Scripture* If this be true, 
many a man might have saved himself a great deal 
of labour in v/riting and preaching, and many books 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 317 

on this subject are mere waste paper, for they are 
written expressly to establish the very contrary. If 
this ground is taken we shall be very happy, for it is 
greatly abridging the ground of debate on this sub- 
ject. Am I then to understand, that all the texts 
which speak about Gehenna are abandoned, as not 
teaching the doctrine of endless misery ? If they are, 
it is to be lamented, that they have been so long quo- 
ted as the principal proofs of this doctrine, and thus 
perverted from their true meaning. My labour at 
any rate, is not lost. If I am instrumental in rescu-" 
ing so many parts of God's word from such a misap- 
plication of them, I shall have the consolation that I 
have not lived nor written in vain. A correct under- 
standing of God's word is to me the first thing in re- 
ligion. There can be no real religion in the perver- 
sion of that blessed book. If they then are relin- 
quished as proof, we hope we shall hear no more 
about hell as a place of endless misery. Not only 
the texts, but the very word hell must be laid aside 
as inapplicable to the subject. But if this isdone, w^e 
shall feel some impatience, until we learn by what 
other name it is called in Scripture. 

It has been objected to my views — that by Gehenna^ 
ESTATE and not a place of future endless punishment is 
intended^ and that I lutve dwelt too much on the idea of 
its being a place. In reply to this we observe — 1st, 
That before this objection is urged against me, such 
as hold to the doctrine Qf endless misery, ought to 
give up speaking of it as a place of punishment. It is 
always represented as a place, in writing, in preach- 
ing, and in conversation. Let the writer or the 
preacher be named, who does not speak of it as a 
place but as a state. Dr. Campbell, Edwards, and all 
other writers that I have ever seen or heard of, inva-^ 
riably speak of it as a place. Yea, some have even 
pretended to tell where it is located, and have de-^ 
27* 



318 AN INQUIRY INTO 

scribed also the nature of its punishment, and the 
wretched condition: of its inhabitants in a very cir-* 
cumstantial manner. There can be no reasonable 
objection brought against my speaking of it as a place, 
until such persons give up this mode of speaking 
about it themselves. But if any uneasiness is felt^ 
as if the doctrine was in danger, in speaking of hell 
as a place of endless punishment, we have no objec- 
tion that they adopt the term state. Only let us fair- 
ly understand one another, and let them not blame me 
for speaking about it as they do themselves, until 
they have made this alteration. 

2d, But, supposing the word state to be substituted 
for the word place^ we ask, what advantage is gained 
in favour of the doctrine of endless misery? How 
does this new word shield it from what has been ad- 
vanced against it? If it affords it any asylum, we 
confess our inability to perceive it. We are equally 
at a loss to perceive, how it invalidates a single fact 
or argument, which we have advanced, in proof that 
Gehenna or hell in the New Testament does not teach 
the doctrine of endless misery. If we are mistaken 
let our mistake be pointed out. 

3d, We should feel obliged to the persons, who 
wish to abandon the word place^ to describe to us what 
they mean by state^ and endless punishment in this 
state, without any idea of place. We hope they will 
be kind enough to inform us also, why they wish to 
shift their ground from place io state^ and whether this 
is coming nearer to the Scripture mode of speaking of 
their doctrine; or, is it with a view io. perplex the siib- 
ject^ and evade the arguments urged against it ? Men who 
would lay aside the good old imy of speaking of hell^ 
must have some reasons for doing this. We wish to 
know them. 

4th, We have attempted to show, that Gehenna or 
hell, spoken of in the New Testament, is in reference 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 319 

to the same punishment, of which the prophet Jere- 
miah had spoken long before, concerning the Jewish 
nation. He had made Gehenna or the valley of Hin- 
nom, an emblem of this punishment. In speaking 
therefore of Gehenna as a place, it was not my views 
which required this so much, as in opposing the com- 
mon ideas entertained on this subject. This was rath- 
er a thing I could not avoid, than from any thing in 
my views which required such a mode of speaking 
in establishing them. Why then blame me for what 
they do themselves, and which their own views of this 
doctrine forces upon me in controverting them ? 

5th, It is allowed that heaven is a place as well as 
a state. Buck, in his Theological Dictionary, vol. i. 
p. 330. says — '' Heaven is to be considered a placc^ as well 
as a state ; it is expressly so termed in Scripture. 
John xiv. 2, 3: and the existence of the body of 
Christ, and those of Enoch and Elijah, is a further 
proof of it. Yea, if it be not a place, where can 
those bodies be ? And where will the bodies of the 
saints exist after the resurrection ?" 1 appeal to all 
the world, if hell is not as generally spoken of as a 
place, as heaven is. And substituting the word hell 
for heaven in this quotation, the same things may be 
said of the wicked, as is said of the righteous. 1 only 
ask in the la^iguage of this quotation — "Where will 
the bodies of the v/icked exist after the resurrection,"^ 
if hell be not a place? For all who believe this doc- 
trine say they are to be raised. 

6th, The popular views of Gehenna or hell, not 
only represent it as a place, but the Bible is thought 
to countenance this view of the subject. It is very 
certain, that the Scriptures do not mention hell as a 
state^ and do not guard us against supposing it to be a 
place^as this objection would have us believe concern- 
ing it. All past orthodoxy, would denounce the man 
as heretical, who would insinuate that hell was not a 



320 AN INQUIRY INTO 

place^ but only a state. And must I now be condem- 
ned as heretical for not speaking of hell as a state 
but as di place? 

It has been objected^ — 'Uhat the words of our Lord^ 
Matth. xxiii. 33. to the unbelieving Jews zvere prophetic^ 
and that by the damnation of hell^ he might simply mean 
some punishment after deaths without any reference to the 
place or the nature of the punishment. '^'^ On this objec- 
tion we remark 

1st, That it has been shown in considering this^ 
passage, p. 127. that our Lord's words are not a pre- 
diction, but simply a threatening of temporal punish- 
ment to the Jews. But this objector takes it for grant- 
ed that our Lord's words are prophetic. It is not as- 
sertions and suppositions, but proof that can avail us 
any thing on this subject. If the objector says, that 
by the damnation of hell, our Lord might simply 
mean some punishment after death, w^ithout any ref- 
erence to the place or the nature of the punishment^, 
let him produce some evidence of this. We think we 
have shown from this text and its context, that our 
Lord had no reference to a punishment after deaths 
but to the temporal punishment coming on the Jewish 
nation. Let the objector disprove what we have said, 
and let him show from the context of this place, how 
his supposition can be supported from it. We may 
5u//>05e any thing; but if unsupported by evidence, 
ought mere suppositions to be regarded ? 

2d, If the objector can prove, that the punishment- 
mentioned in this passage is after death, we really 
think that the place where it is to be suffered is call- 
ed Gehenna^ by our Lord. Why he should think 
the punishment to be after death, and yet have any 
difficulty as to its location, or the nature of the pun- 
ishment, we cannot conceive. The context of this 
place surely gives him no reason to conclude, that the 
punishment is after deaths but the reverse. And if it 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 321 

does not determine also the nature of the punishment 
to be temporal, and that which was to come on the 
Jewish nation during that generation, it will be diffi- 
cult to determine any thing from the Bible. If the 
punishment, of which our Lord spoke in this passage, 
be after death, it will not be difficult to show that ev- 
ery punishment mentioned in the Bible, is after death.. 

It is further objected—-?/ the mere silence of the Old 
Testament concerning Gehenna being a place of endless 
misery is of any force against it^ will it not be of equal 
force against the doctrine of future existence^ the resurrec- 
tion of the dead^ and many other things^ which are not re^ 
vealed in the Old Testament ? In answer to this, we 
remark 

1st, That we have never laid much stress on the 
silence of the Old Testament, respecting Gehenna not 
being a place of endless misery. We have decidedly 
expressed our willingness to believe the doctrine if it 
can be proved from either Testament. We have said 
and we now say, that it is somewhat remarkable that 
such a doctrine as hell torments should not be taught 
in the Old Testament. 

2d, The objector proceeds on the presumption, that 
future existence and the resurrection of the dead, 
were doctrines not revealed under the Old Testament. 
But this he has got to prove before his objection can 
invalidate any thing which I have said, drawn from 
ihe's'lence of the Old Testament, to prove that Ge- 
henna or hell is not a place of endless misery. If he 
proves, that a life of happiness after death, was un- 
known under the Old Testament, it is freely admitted, 
that my argument, drawn from its silence about fu- 
t ire punishment, is destroyed. But if future happi- 
ness was known, and future eternal misery not known, 
how stands the argument ? It is easily seen that it 
has considerable force, in favour of the views which 
I have advanced. 



322 AN INQUIRY INTO 

3d, That both future existence and the resurrection 
of the dead were in some degree known under the 
old dispensation, we think can be proved. Our Lord 
blamed the Jews for not inferring this from the words 
of God to Moses at the bush. Paul in the 11th of 
Hebrews shows, we think, decidedly, what was the 
faith of the ancient patriarchs about this. Though 
life and incorruption were brought to light by the 
gospel, yet, if this were the proper place, we think it 
could be shown, that it was not the doctrine but the 
fact^ which was brought to light. But can the ob- 
jector prove the contrary, and can he show, that the 
doctrine of hell torments was brought to light by the 
gospel ? Unless he can do this, what I have said 
about the silence of the Old Testament respecting 
hell torments, remains unaffected by this objection. 

It has been objected — since paradise in the Old Tes- 
tament merely referred to temporal happiness^ hut in the 
J^ew is used for heavenly blessedness^ why may not also 
Gehenna^ used in the Old Testament for temporal misery^ 
be used in the New for eternal punishment ? If the ob- 
jector thinks so, let him show from the use of the 
w^ords paradise and Gehenna, in the Old and New 
Testaments, that this is actually the case. To admit 
things at this may be rate, is nothing to the purpose, 
and especially on a subject of such importance as the 
one in question. Do we find a place of future eter- 
nal happiness and a place of eternal misery equally 
and clearly revealed in Scripture? This is the first 
thing to be settled. Were both of these revealed, 
there would be nothing strange that paradise and Ge- 
henna should be used by the inspired writers in speak- 
ing of them. But is this true, as it respects a place 
of eternal misery ? But we do not find, upon look- 
ing at all the places in the New Testament where the 
words paradise and Gehenna are used, that similar 
things are said of Gehenna as a place of future pun- 



THE WORD GEHEISTNA. 323 

ishment after death, as is said of paradise as a place 
of happiness after death? Let our readers judge, if 
there be any affinity between paradise and Gehenna, 
and if these two words are used to express future- 
eternal blessedness and misery alike, in Scripture. 
The objector takes it for granted that paradise is used 
in the Old Testament, But in this he is mistaken, for 
the word does not once occur there. Paradise is not 
even a Hebrew word but is allowed to be Persian^ 
Had the objector noticed that this word is not used 
in the Old Testament, it might have prevented such 
an objection's being made against my views. We 
have the sanction of the New Testament writers, that 
paradise is used as a figure for future blessedness ; 
but that Gehenna is used as an emblem of eternal 
misery, we are referred to the Targuras as authority. 
But this objection is founded in a mistake and did not 
deserve any consideration. 

It -h^jsbeen also objected — that the reason vjhy John 
said nothing about Gehenna was^ that he was the beloved 
disciple: and that the reason why all the apostles are silent 
about it is^. they wished to save men by lov% andnot by the 
terror of hell torments. This objection has some com- 
fort in it, even if it does not convince us of our error. 
In reply, we may remark, 

1st, That if the reason why John and the apostles 
said nothing about Gehenna or hell torments, was, as 
is asserted, because they wished to save men by love^ 
it would seem to be the reason why modern preach- 
ers preach hell torments, because they wish to save 
them by terror and not by love. How then does the 
objector account for, and is he prepared to defend, 
the difference between apostolic and modern preach- 
ing ? This objection agrees with my views so far, 
that God makes men obedient by love and not by tei^ 
ror. So far well. 



324 AN INQUIRY INTO 

2d, It should seem from this objection, that the 
more we become apostolic, or like John, in love, this 
will lead us to say little, or rather nothing about hell 
torments to others. If we can only like John, be 
beloved disciples, and like the apostles in our tempers 
and dispositions, we shall not mention endless misery 
in our preaching or our conversation to the world 
around us, though we may be full in the belief, that 
they are all in the downward road to it. For 

3d, This objection, notwithstanding all the love in 
John and in the apostles, and their desire to save men 
by love and not by terror, supposed Gehenna or hell 
a place of endless misery for the wicked. The ob- 
jection proceeds on the supposition that John and all 
the apostles believed this, yet said nothing about it 
because they wished to save men by love rather than 
terror. If it is alleged that in the places where our 
Lord used the term Gehenna, he meant a place of 
endless misery, John and all the apostles differed from 
him about this, for it seems he wish-ed to save men, 
yea, even his own disciples by terror of hell torments. 
The objector seems to approve of their conduct, and 
thinks that this was not only a lovely disposition in 
them, but that it showed love to the persons whom 
they addressed, in saying nothing to them about helU 
Let no man say that this is love. What! John and 
the rest of the apostles, love men's souls, and believ- 
ed them exposed to endless misery in hell, yet never 
once mention their danger to them ? All will here 
agree with me in saying that this is any thing but love 
or faithfulness to the souls of men. 

It is further objected — if Gehenna sigmfies wrath to 
come^ it was natural to speak to Jews of endless misery by 
the former^ and to Gentiles by the latter mode of expres- 
sion. Why it was natural to speak to Jews of eternal 
misery by the one expression and to Gentiles by the 
other, we are not informed. But 1st, allowing that 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 325 

Ibis is tte case, can it b*e proved that Gehenna^ and the 
phrase wrath tocome^ are used in Scripture to express 
either to Jews or Gentiles endless punishment in a fu- 
tare state ? We have shown that Gehenna is not so 
used iti Scripture, and we think can show that the 
expression wrath to come^ does not refer to a future 
state of exis^tence. Wrath, yea, even the wrath of 
God, may be wrath to come, and yet be wholly con- 
fined to the present world. We think it will be diffi- 
cult to prove that the wrath to come, mentioned in 
Scripture, had any reference to a state of existence 
after death. 2d, Upon examination, we think it will 
be found, that the phrase, wrath to come, refers to 
punishment, and is spoken of to Jews as well as Gen- 
tiles; but as the damnation or punishment of hell or 
Gehenna, had a particular reference to the temporal 
miseries of the Jews at the destruction of their city 
and temple, we never find it spoken of to the Gentiles. 
It has also been objected — that if my viezvs of Ge- 
henna he correct^ my interpretation of the passages where 
our Lord spoke to his disciples concerning it^ goes to show^ 
that he was more concerned for their temporal safety than 
their eternal welfare. This objection, to some, will ap- 
pear more plausible than many others which we have 
stated. But in answer to it, we remark 1st, That this 
objection assumes the question in debate, the whole 
of the present Inquiry being to prove " that the eter- 
nal welfare of the disciples was not in danger." This 
objection goes on the presumption, that the disciples 
were in danger of eternal misery, and that according 
to my interpretation of the passages in which our 
Lord spoke of Gehenna, he was more concerned 
about their temporal safety, than he was about their 
deliverance from eternal misery. The objector has 
then got to disprove the evidence I have' adduced, 
showing that Gehenna does not refer to a place of 
endless misery, and to establish his own views bv ev- 
28 ^ 



326 AN INQUIRY INTO f 

idence drawn from the New Testament that this is itg 
meaning. 2d, I'hat our Lord should be more con- 
cerned for the temporal safety of his disciples, than 
for that of the unbelieving Jews, many reasons might 
be assigned. They were his disciples^ and their tem- 
poral safety could not be a matter of indifference to 
him. Their temporal safety also made manifest his 
character, in not destroying the righteous with the 
wicked. And was not this very sparing them, as a 
father spareth his only son that serveth him, a fulfil- 
ment of what God had spoken? See Mai. iii. 17, 18. 
and comp. chap. iv. But above all, was it not a mat- 
ter of importance that our Lord should show concern 
for the temporal safety of his disciples, as they were 
to be witnesses of his resurrection, and the heralds 
of his salvation to the ends of the earth ? All these 
and other things which^could be mentioned, account 
for our Lord's solicitude about the temporal safety of 
his disciples, without supposing that their souls were 
in danger of endless punishment in Gehenna. 

It is further objected — if there be no such thing as 
hell or place of misery in a future state^ yet seeing it zoas 
commonly believed both among Jews and Gentiles^ that 
there was such a place^ why is it that neither Christ nor his 
apostles ever took occasion to contradict this false notion^ 
hut on the contrary expressed themselves in appearance^ at 
leasts so much in favour of this opinion that a great part 
of mankind from that time to this have supposed it fully 
taught in the New Testament. Some remarks are made 
in chap. i. sect. 3. which in part meet this objection. 
We off'er a few additional remarks here in reply to it. 
1st, Then, we ask, how came they by such a belief? 
It was not from the Old Testament, for it is allowed 
that it does not teach such a doctrine. In chap. i. 
sect. 3. it has been shown, that the Jews learned this 
doctrine from their intercourse with the heathen. 
This made such a belief common to both Jews and 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 



32t 



Gentiles, and not that it was common to both, from 
divine revelation. 2d, But the point of this objec- 
tion lies in the following things. It is asked,— "why is it 
that neither Christ nor his apostles ever took occasion 
to contradict this false notion that hell was a place of 
misery?" In answer to this we ask in our turn — ''.If 
Christ and his apostles believed this doctrine common 
to both Jews and Gentiles, why did they not avail 
themselves of this universally received notion to in- 
culcate and enforce this doctrine?" To have taught 
it, could have given no offence to either of them ; yet 
we find them silent on the subject, that Gehenna or 
even Hades is such a place. The only exception to 
this, is the parable of the rich man, which has been 
shown not even to teach an intermediate state of pun- 
ishment. If this popular belief then, was true, and 
believed to be so by the Saviour and his apostles, 
why did they not avail themselves of it, and enforce 
it on both Jews and Gentiles ? 3d, If we are lo con- 
clude, that because Christ and his apostles never ex- 
pressly contradicted this false notiun, common to buth 
Jews and Gentiles, and that they by their silence 
sanctioned it as true, it follows, that all the false no- 
tions entertained by Jews and Gentiles not expressly 
contradicted by them are true. But we presume few 
would admit this, though it is a natural consequence 
from this objection. When any man will fairly make 
out, that their not contradicting expressly all the false, 
Jewish and heathen notions, is proof that those about 
which they are silent are true, we shall admit the one 
in question to be of the number. But another part 
of the point of this objection is, that—'' on the con- 
trary they expressed themselves, in appearance at 
least, so much in favour of this opinion, that a great 
part of mankind from that time to this have supposed 
it fully taught in the New Testament." In reply, we 
would ask in what parts of the New Testament do 



^o AN INi^UIRY INTO 

we find this ? Not surely from those parts whicb 
speak either of Hades or Gehenna. The places 
where our Lord used those words, have been consid- 
ered, and we think it has been shown, that in none 
qf them did he teach such a doctrine. His apostles 
never once name Gehenna, nor even intimate that 
either Hades or Gehenna referred to a place of end- 
less misery. If our Lord and his apostles, did in ap- 
pearance, speak of such a place of misery, some oth- 
er texts must be referred to than those in which the 
words Hades and Gehenna are found* But it is sup- 
posed that Jesus Christ and his apostles expressed 
themselves in appearance, at least, so much in favour 
of this opinion, "that a great part of mankind from 
that time to this have supposed it fully taught in the 
New Testament." It will not be denied, that men 
from that time to this have supposed Christ and his 
apostles to teach doctrines, which thry are now com- 
ing to be convinced are not taught in the Bible. That 
the one we have been considering is not of that num- 
ber, ought not to l^e taken for granted. It is admit- 
ted by all, that a great many Jewish and heathen no- 
tions, w^ere very early incorporated with the doctrine 
of Christ and his apostles. Past ages have furnished 
but too much evidence, that the Scriptures have been 
used to countenance almost every opinion. Closer 
attention to the oracles of God has exploded many of 
them, and increased attention, may expose the false- 
hood of many more. That hell, a place of endless 
misery for the wicked, is an opinion which originated 
with the heathen we have shown above; and have 
also attempted to show, that those texts on w hich this 
doctrine has been founded have been greatly misun- 
derstood. If we have erred in interpreting them let 
this be pointed out. Until this is done, and it is shown 
that the doctrine of hell torments did not originate in 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 329 

heathenism but on the authority of God, our views 
stand unshaken by this objection. 

We find it also objected — ij there he no place of pun- 
ishment in a future state prepared for such as die in unbe- 
lief how is this part of mankind to be disposed of after 
deaths in what part of the universe is their abode to be as- 
signed them ? Not in heaven ; for God is represented in 
Scripture as bringing with him from thence^ at the resur- 
rection of the dead^ only those that " sleep in Jesus^^'^ and 
of all the dead only "• the dead in Chrisf'^ are said to as- 
cend thither with him to dwell forever with the Lord. Not 
in Gehenna or hell ; for according to your views^ there is 
no such place in the world to come. On this objection 
let it be remarked — 1st, Whatever abode we assign 
such persons in a future state, we think we have 
shown, that God does not assign to them as their 
abode, Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or even Gehenna. If 
God has not assigned to them such a place, it is rash 
in us to assert this without his authority. If he should 
leave them without any abode either as to happiness 
or misery, there we ought to leave them. Dr. Camp- 
bell as we have seen, declares, that Hades is at last 
to be destroyed, and accordingly he assigns them an 
everlasting abode in Gehenna, but we think without 
any warrant from Scripture. If we then have proved^ 
that hell or Gehenna is not the everlasting abode 
which God has assigned them, and seeing the object- 
or thinks that heaven is not to be their abode, we ask 
him in turn how they are to be disposed of? If he 
denies that heaven is to be their abode, we think it 
has been shown that hell is not said to be their abode. 
If it is said, because they are not to go to heaven 
they must go to hell ; we may reply, because they 
are not to go to hell they must go to heaven. 2d, The 
objection states that their abode is not to be in heav- 
en, and the reasons assigned are— '^ For God is rep- 
resented in Scripture as bringing with him from. 
28* 



330 AN INC^UISY INTO 

thence, at the resurrection of the dead, only those 
that ^ sleep in Jesus 5' and of all the d-ead, only ' the 
dead in Christ' are said to ascend thither with him to 
dwell forever with the Lord," This refers to 1 Thess* 
iv. 13. &c. on the whole of which passage 1 shall 
make the following remarks. 

1st, The grand distinction in this passage, is be- 
tween the dead and those found alive on the earth at 
the period referred to. The passage is alike silent 
how the wicked dead and those wicked found alive 
are to be disposed of; for not a word is said about 
the wicked. The persons said to be asleep or dead^ 
verse 13. and those which sleep in Jesus, verse 14. 
and also as asleep, verse 15. and the dead in Christ 
w^ho shall rise first, verse 16. all refer to the same 
persons. They refer to the dead, and we presume 
are exclusively confined by the objector to believers. 
On the other hand the we, who are said to be alive 
and remain, mentioned verses 15— 'IT. must also be 
confined exclusively to believers, then found alive on 
the earth. These shall not prevent, or go before them 
who are asleep. Before they shall ascend, the dead 
in Christ shall rise first, and both shall ascend to- 
gether to meet the Lord in the air. These last, we 
must confine to all living believers found on the earth, 
for if we extend it to all living, indiscriminately, why 
not the first also to all the dead indiscriminately ? 
But if we take into view the 15th chapter of 1st Co- 
rinthians and especially from verse 51 — 58. which 
seems to treat of the same subject, all the dead seems 
to be included. Compare also verses 20 — 22,31, 
35, 42—45. 

2d, It is evident that the passage makes no distinc- 
tion between two classes of people to be raised at this 
period, righteous and wicked. Either, then, this pas- 
sage does not teach us any thing concerning the wick- 
ed, or they are included with the others here men- 



THE WOKIX 6EHENNA. 331 

tioned. If they are not, and their resurrection is no 
where else spoken of, the inference would be that they 
are not raised at all* But in some other places their 
resurrection is asserted. See Acts xxiv. 15. If Paul 
then in the passage, does not include all dead and 
alive, it is rather singular, that he should say npth- 
ing about the resurrection of the wicked, or how 
those left on the earth are to be disposed of, after all 
the others have left it to meet the Lord in the air. If 
be did not see meet to consign them over to hell for- 
ever, nor inform us how they are to be disposed of 
otherwise, the objector ought to prove, that hell is to 
be their everlasting abode. If 1 am mistaken in my 
views of Gehenna or hell, I wish to see my error 
pointed out. If it is to be their abode, I am in a great 
mistake. But if this passage is allowed to speak only 
of belfevers, yet there are others, which do not accord 
with what the objector seems to draw from it. Ac- 
cording to this objection, none but such as died be- 
lievers in Christ are to be finally happy in heaven. 
This at once excludes all the heathen world, and a 
great part of what is called the Christian world. But 
how does all this agree with the promises of God, 
that in Christ all the families of the earth are to be 
blessed. That the heathen are given him for his in- 
heritance, and the uttermost ends of the earth for his 
possession. That God hath reconciled all things to 
himself by Jesus Christ. That he is Lord of all, 
Lord both of the dead and of the living. That every 
knee shall bow to him and every tongue confess. 
But see among others the following passages which 
we think it will be difficult to reconcile with the ob- 
jection urged from this passage. 1 Cor, xvi. 24 — 29. 
Rom. V. 12—21. Rev. v. 13. Philip, ii. 9—12. In 
short, how could it with any propriety be said, that 
the devilj the works of the devil, and death, the last 



332 AN INQUIRY INTO 

enemy are all destroyed, if this objection .is founded 
in truth? 

But the whole force of this objection seems to rest 
on the expression that is here used concerning the 
persons who are to be raised, that they sleep in Jesus. 
The term sleep is used for deaih^ and* we think it can 
be proved that it is so used concerning good and bad. 
It is then the words in Jesus^ on which the whole 
depends. Now we would ask, if even those who died 
in ignorance and unbelief concerning him, are persons 
for whom he died ; for whose sins he was a propitia- 
tion, and that he is not to give up the kingdom until 
all things are subdued; yea, such persons are to be 
raised hy him ; may it not be said that they sleep in 
him? 

But there is one thing in thfs passage which I would 
notice, and with it conclude my remarks on this ob- 
jection. In verse 13. the apostle, addressing the 
ThessalonianF, says — "I would not have you to be ig- 
norant, brethren, concerning them who are asleep, 
that ye sorrow not even as others who have no hope." 
Who were asleep, let me ask, and concerning whom 
the apostle washed them, ^' not to sorrow as those 
w^ho have no hope?" According to the view taken in 
the objection they were only believers ; or believing 
relatives who had died. But why should they sor- 
row so much for them and be told not to sorrow like 
the heathen, w^hose grief at the death of their rela- 
tives w^as excessive? If we confine those who are rep- 
resented as asleep, to believers only, it should seem 
that the Thessalonians had even little hope as to them, 
and went to excess in grief and needed to be caution- 
ed against it. But if we consider the apostle as ex- 
horting them against excessive grief at the death of 
their relations, who even died heathens, it not only 
obviates this difficulty, but their minds are consoled 
by the apostle in the passage concerning them. To 



THE WORD GEHENNA. 333 

understand it otherwise would represent the Thessa- 
lonians as being grieved only at the death of their 
believing relations, and no way concerned for the fu- 
ture condition of such of them as died heathens. 

Such are the objections, of any importance, which 
we have heard urged against the views which we 
have advanced concerning hell or Gehenna. Some of 
them, we frankly admit, are too triflng to have been 
noticed. After a consideration of them we must say, 
that not one of them, nor all of them taken together, 
have even led us to suspect, that what we have said 
concerning hell, is contrary to Scripture. But let our 
readers consider them, and judge for themselves. 



SECTION VII. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS* 



If the sentiments advanced in the preceding pages 
have been attended to by the reader, he no doubt per- 
ceives, that the conclusion which results from them 
is, that — there is no place of endless misery taught in 
Scripture^ for all the wicked^ as is commonly believed by 
most Christians. This we admit to be the fair infer- 
ence which results from what has been stated, unless 
it can be proved, that such a place of endless misery 
is revealed in Scripture under some other name than 
Sheol, Hades, Tartarus, or Gehenna. It is our delib- 
erate and candid opinion, that these words are never 
used in Scripture to express such a place of misery. 
We have laid the evidence on which this opinion has 
been formed, before our readers, and they are left to 
judge for themselves as to its truth or falsehood. 
Some, no doubt, will condemn and reject what we have 
said, without giving the evidence produced a patient 
hearing. The popular, but senseless, cry of heresy^ 
is sure to be rung in people's ears, to deter them from 
paying any attention to the subject. From such per- 
sons we expect nothing but noise and abuse, for they 
have no desire that their faith should stand in the 
wisdom of God. But there are others, whose good 
sense, judgment and piety we respect, who, no doubt, 
will conclude, that my inquiry has ended in a great 
and fatal error. To all such I would oifer a few re- 
marks, in vindication of myself, against this sentence 
of condemnation. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS* 335 

1st, Let those who thus condemn me, consider, if 
they do not take for granted, the grand question which 
has been under discussion. Do they not first deter- 
mine in their own minds that hell is a place of endless 
misery, and because my investigation has not brought 
me to this conclusion also, therefore I must be in a 
great error ? But why ought not such persons to ad- 
mit, that they may be in an error on this subject ; 
and instead of condemning me, bring the subject to 
the Bible for examination ? It is not our work to 
make a Bible, to alter it, nor bend it to support any 
sentiment, however popular in the religious world. It 
is a duty incumbent on every man, to study that prec- 
ious book with serious care and attention, and by 
every just rule of interpretation, to ascertain, what is 
its true meaning. This I have attempted to do, and 
unless I shut my eyes against evidence, and am de- 
termined to be an implicit believer in the doctrine of 
endless misery in hell, to what other result could I 
come on this subject ? If after all the care and atten- 
tion I have been able to give this subject, it can be 
proved that I am in an error, let this be done, and I 
pledge myself to renounce it. I have the testimony 
of my own conscience, that I have sought after the 
truth, and that without any regard either to the fa- 
vour or the frowns of my fellow creatures. 

2d, But if we are not to examine into the truth of 
religious doctrines, unless our examinations end in the 
belief that the popular and long established views of 
them are true, all inquiry and investigation might as 
well be spared. It is much easier to adopt the popular 
belief at once ; for, after all our labour and carje, 
to this we must come at last. Besides ; in this 
way we avoid all the pain and popular odium, which 
a change of religious opinion frequently involves. 
But, had this course been pursued by all who have 
gone before us, what would our condition now have 



336 CONCLUE^ING REMARKS • 

been as to science or religion ? We had to-day been 
sitting in the region of darkness, and saying to the 
works of our own hands — "ye are our gods." Tht 
Bible is the religion of Protestants^ and among all the 
sects into which they are divided, free inquiry is, to a 
certain extent inculcated. Most sects, however, have 
their limits fixed, beyond which if a man goes, he be- 
comes suspected, and perhaps is denounced as an 
heretic. ' He may inquire and investigate as much as 
he pleases to support the peculiar tenets of his sect, 
but beyond this it is dangerous to proceed. Should 
he push his inquiries further, and find some of them 
the inventions of men, he must conceal his discoveries, 
for if he does not, the vengeance of the whole sect, 
if not the whole religious community, will be poured 
on his head. I must be very fond of suffering thus to 
expose myself. 

3d, Since I am to be condemned because tny inves- 
tigations have not resulted in the popular belief of 
the doctrine of hell torments, 1 do not see any [possible 
way of getting rid of error, or increasing in knowl- 
edge. I have done no more than thousands have 
done before me; to examine the Bible for themselves, 
and state the result for the consideration of others. 
Such as have done so have seldom escaped the appel- 
lation of heretics. But the first to condemn others, 
are generally the last to examine for themselves what 
is truth on any religious subject. 

If in this investigation I have travelled beyond the - 
record, let this be pointed out by an appeal to the 
^ame record. If a man under mistaken views of a 
religious doctrine, avows his mistaken sentiments, and 
thereby brings more truth to light and excites inquiry, 
are not these VRluable ends served to society? 

4th, Supposing the views which have been advanc- 
ed, had been theuniversal belief df (he religious com- 
munity as long as the doctrine of eternal misery, and 



COlfCLUDING REMARKS. 337 

that this doctrine had never been known in the world. 
Allowing that 1 had come forward and attempted to 
show that endless misery in hell was a doctrine taught 
in Scripture, and that the contrary was a mistaken 
view of the subject. Beyond all doubt I should be 
liable to the very same condemnation to which I am 
now subjected. The trumpet would sound loud and 
long, by all religious parties against me. It would 
be sagely and gravely remarked, — " what a dread- 
ful doctrine he has embraced. What dreadful views 
his doctrine gives of the God who made us. He rep- 
resents him as dooming a great part of his creatures 
to endless misery in hell. His inquiries have led him 
into a most dreadful error." i appeal to every can- 
did man if this would not b€ my fate, and if as good 
ground was not afforded for such conclusions and 
condemnations in the one case, as in the other. — In 
concluding this subject, we shall view the two oppo- 
site doctrines in the following points of light. 

1st, How does the two doctrines affect the charac- 
ter of God? Let us view them as to the promises of 
God. He promised that the seed of the w^oman should 
bruise the head of the serpent. To bruise a serpent's . 
head is to kill or destroy it. But is the serpent's 
head bruised, if the greater part of the human race 
are to be eternally miserable ? Even this is too gross 
to be believed by respectable orthodox writers in the 
present day. Mr. Emerson, in his book on the Mil- 
lennium, commenting on Gen. iii. 15. thus writes : p. 
11. "Now the question arise?, Has (he serpent's head 
been bruised in any degree answerable to the mani- 
fest import of the passage under consideration? A 
great part of mankind have gone to destruction. Does 
this look like bruising the serpent's head ? If the 
greater part of the human race are to be lost by the 
cunning craftiness of satan, will that look like bruis- 
ing his head ? To me it would seem far otherwise, 
29 



338 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

Should Satan continue the god of this world from the 
beginning to the end of time, leading whole nations 
captive at his will, surely he will seem to have cause 
to triumph. But the head of satan must be bruised ; 
his plots must be crushed. Are all mankind to be 
saved? Certainly not. That would be giving the 
lie to numerous declarations of eternal Truth ; it 
would be throwing away the Bible at once. And if 
the Bible be thrown away, it would be impossible to 
prove the salvation of any. But there is no doubt 
that by far the greater part of mankind will be saved* 
This appears necessary, in order that the serpent's 
head may be bruised. I am strongly inclined to the 
opinion of Dr. Hopkins, that of the whole human 
race, thousands will be saved for one that is lost." 

We are happy to see from such respectable au- 
thors, that thousands are to be saved to '0«e that is 
lost; and that if the greater part of the human race 
are to be lost, satan's head would not be bruised, but 
that he would have cause to triumph. If so many- 
must be saved as stated in this quotation, to avoid 
these consequences, we would suggest it for the con- 
sideration of all, as well as that of the worthy author, 
whether satan-s head could be.bruised, or he destroy- 
ed, and whether he would not have caus« of triumph 
if one individualof the hum^n race was lost. If but 
one was left in his power, to be tormented by him 
forever, how could his head be bruised, and would 
he not triumph in this small conquest, as well as over 
one in a thousand? We do not see how the number 
could materially alter the case. We seriously think 
that if the number to be saved be so great in propor- 
tion to those lost, we would do well to consider if all 
mankind may not be saved, and that we may believe 
this without throwing away our Bibles. On this quo- 
tation, we cannot help remarking how different the 
sentiments contained in it are, to what was considered 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 339 

true orthodoxy in former ages. In those days, it 
would have been considered throwing away the Bi- 
ble, to say that thousands will be saved for one lost, 
just as much as saying in these, that all will be saved. 
If Christ comes so near saving the whole human race, 
in the name of humanity why not let his triumph be 
complete ; why strain at the gnat and swallow the 
camel? God also promised to Abraham, that in his 
seed, which was Christ, all the families of the earth 
should be blessed. But if the doctrine of endless 
misery be true, and a great part of mankind are de- 
creed to such a punishment, how can this promise of 
God be fulfilled ? Let any one go over the promises 
and predictions of the Old Testament, two of which 
I have merely adduced as a specimen, and then can- 
didly say, if he finds them in unison with the limited 
views of salvation which most men entertain. It 
would be as endless, as useless for me to dwell on this 
topic. 

But let us view the two doctrines in regard to the 
threatenings of God», The doctrine of eternal mis- 
ery supposes that God threatened Adam, that in the 
day he ate of the forbidden fruit he should die, and 
that death threatened is said to be death temporal, 
spiritual, and eternal. This eternal death is said to 
be endless misery in hell. Hell torment, then, w^as 
threatened before sin existed, or before the promise 
of a Saviour was given. But is this a correct under- 
standing of the death threatened Adam ? The false- 
hood of it is evident from one fact, that Adam, Noah, 
Abraham, and all the^ Old Testament believers did 
not so understand it. If they had, would they not 
have taught it to mankind? 

But let us also view the two doctrines, in regard to 
the attributes or character of God. It has been said, 
that my views are very dishonourable to God's char- 
acter. His justice, his holiness, and truth are dishon- 



^40 CONCLUDING REMARKS. 

oured if there be no endless punishment for all the 
wicked. But if. my views dishonour God's justice^ 
holiness and truth, what comes of his mercy and 
goodness, if the opposite doctrine be true ? We have 
to be sure seen attempts made by some metaphysi- 
cal writers, to reconcile eternal misery with the mer- 
cy and goodness of God, but in vain. All they have 
said, is only enveloping the subject in a mist, or throw- 
ing dust in people's eyes to blind them on this sub- 
ject. It is reported of the late Dr. Osgood, that 
when he was asked the question, "how he reconciled 
the doctrine of eternal misery with the character of 
God as a God of mercy and goodness ;" he lifted both 
his hands, and said, " if any man is able to do this I 
cannot do it." Whether God is more glorified in 
men's damnation or in their salvation, I need not dis- 
cuss. One thing is certain ; that those called ortho- 
dox writers in the present day are fully aware, that 
ifGoddidnot ultimately save the greatest part of 
mankind, God's character would be dishonoured. If 
this was not the case who could deny that the devil 
was more honoured than God ? Mr. Emerson, aware 
of this, agrees with another celebrated divine, that 
those saved at last, will exceed those that are lost by 
a large majority. I am truly glad to see men of such 
good characters and intelligence so much concerned 
for God's honour and glory in this respect; and I 
hope the time is not very distant when they may think 
God most honoured and glorified by saving the whole 
human race. It is a very evident case, that those 
writers do not hesitate to dissent from ancient ortho- 
doxy. Had they written so in some former ages, 
they would have suffered death, in some of its most 
terrific forms for their temerity. At any rate, I am 
.not a greater heretic now, than they would have been 
then. 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 341 

Sd, How does the views advanced and their oppo- 
site affect the Scriptares of Truth ? I think it will 
iiot be denied, that my views of all the passages in 
which Gehenna occurs, are explained consistently 
with themselves, and their respective contexts. That 
so far from the contexts being at variance with the 
texts they direct to the explanations given. When 
a man perverts the Scriptures, he does it in the face 
of facts, and shutting his eyes against the context and 
Scripture usage of words, indulges his own imagina- 
tion. But here the reverse is the case. The context 
points out the sense 1 have given Gehenna ; Scripture 
usage comes in aid; nor is any thing taken for grant- 
ed, or imagination indulged. But that Gehenna is a 
place of future misery, is assumed, and asserted with- 
out proof, and when the context and Scripture usage 
are consulted for evidence, all they afford is on the 
opposite side. 

3d, Let us see how the two doctrines affect the va- 
rious religious sects in the world. Allowing that this 
doctrine was universally the faith of all parties, dis- 
cord must cease, and Christians v/ould embrace each 
other as children of the same father, and heirs of the 
same inheritance. It would lead all sects to treat 
each other very differently from what they have done* 
But how does the opposite doctrine operate among 
them ? Hell being a place of endless misery, Chris- 
tians have been for ages consigning each other over 
to its punishment, and that often for conscientious dif- 
ferences of religious opinions. 

4th, Let us now consider how my views and their 
opposite affect the diffusion of the gospel in the world. 
Say some, " if your views are correct, why trouble 
ourselves, or be at such an expense to send the gos- 
pel to the heathen ?" The principal object in send- 
ing missionaries to the heathen in our day, seems to 

29* 



342 CONCLUDING REMARKS, 

be to save them from hell. If this be the object of 
sending them, we think they may abide at home ; for 
certainly they are running on an errand to them, on 
which the apostles were never sent. Those who wish 
to see what they proposed, yea, accomplished, by 
preaching to the heathen, may consult the Acts of the 
apostles, and all the epistles. Because there is no* 
eternal torment from which to save them, shall we not 
impart to them the knowledge and hope of eternal 
life ? Unless we can terrify them with preaching hell, 
shall we let them live and die ignorant about heaven? 
In short, because we cannot save them from a place 
where they shall dishonour God and be punished by 
him forever, shall we not save them from dishonour- 
ing his name and from punishment in the present 
world? Unless we have the honour of saving the 
heathen from everlasting punishment in hell, it seems 
we do not think it worthy of our notice to do them 
any good. 1 pity the man who can think, and feel, 
and reason at such a rate. Supposing the happiness 
of heaven and the torment of hell out of the question, 
and that the heathen world were as ignorant of sci- 
ence, agriculture and the arts of life, as they are of 
spiritual things, how ought we to think, and feel, and 
reason on this subject? Deists and Atheists in this 
case would put Christians to the blush, if they would 
do them no service, because they had no hell torments 
to save them from. My views of hell so far from 
abating Christian zeal, only gives it a right direction. 
The zeal manifested in the present day in behalf of 
the heathen is highly to be commended, and nothing 
prevents its being more generally approved, but the 
object tovv ards which it is directed. It is zeal, but we 
think it is not according to the knowledge of Scrip- 
ture. If an intelligent heathen were to ask a modern 
missionary, after hearing him preach hell torments, 
the following questions, what could he answer? — Do 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 343 

you profess to take the apostles, the first missionaries 
to the heathen, as a pattern in your preaching and 
conduct ? To this the missionary would without doubt 
reply in the affirmative. Give me leave, says he, 
then, to ask you, what heathen nation they ever went 
to and preached as you do to us, that they came to 
save them from a place called hell? To what ser- 
mon of theirs can you refer us, in which they even so 
much as mentioned the word hell, which is so often 
upon your lips? — Were 1 this missionary, such ques- 
tions would nonplus me. But to what could any mis- 
sionary appeal, showing that those persons were all 
exposed to endless torments in hell? Not to his Bi- 
ble, a book they know nothing about? Not to any 
thing he could point them to as an object of sight, 
feeling, or hearing. He could indeed refer them back 
to the old heathen fables about hell, from which 
source Dr. Campbell thinks the Jews derived this 
notion. But we are rather inclined to think, so far 
as our knowledge of present heathenism goes, that 
the heathen have forgotten the ancient fables about 
hell, and are obliged to Christians to revive this an- 
cient doctrine of their fathers among them. 

5th, Let us see which of the two doctrines accords 
best with the wishes, and feelings and prayers of 
every good man. What a good man wishes, and 
which is agreeable to his best feelings, for this he 
prays. Accordingly it is common with all Christians 
to pray for the salvation of all men ; and we believe 
that they do this often with holy and ardent desires 
for its accomplishment. But, is there not a contradic- 
tion between their wishes, feelings, and prayers, and 
their professed creed? If they are confident all will 
never be saved, but only a small number elected to 
everlasting happiness, why pray for the salvation of 
all men? Their prayers ought to be restricted to the 



344 CONCLUDING REMARKSi 

elect. And we see not why they ought not to pray 
for the eternal misery of all the rest, seeing that it is 
the will, yea, the eternal decree of God that they 
should be forever miserable. All we request here, 
is, that every Christian would impartially and seri- 
ously examine, if my views may not be true, which 
are so much in unison with his wishes, his best feel- 
ings, and his prayers, when in the most solemn inter- 
course with his God. If I am in an error, it i&strange 
that this error should have such a place in the desires, 
and feelings, and prayers of all Christians. 

6th, How does my views and the opposite affect 
the eternal condition of men ? According to my views, 
not one of the human race is to be punished forever 
in hell or Gehenna. This, if true, is certainly a pleas- 
ing thought, amidst all the guilt and wo in our world. 
But how does the contrary represent this ? That a 
certain number, no better than others, are to be re- 
ceived into heaven to enjoy its happiness forever. 
All the rest of the human race are to be lifanished to 
hell torments forever. The husband, the parent^ the 
brother, the sister, shall look down from heaven on 
their relations in hell, and so far from having any 
pity at seeing them in such unspeakable and eternal 
torment, the very sight shall enhance and increase 
their happiness. Now give me leave to ask, and let 
conscience speak, which of these two views is likely 
to be the truth. Unless every thing like Christian 
feeling is banished from heaven, can such a doctrine 
be true? Yea, I ask, if Christian feelings are known 
in this place? Is it possible that the happiness of the 
place could be enjoyed, while it is known, that a sin- 
gle individual of God's creatures was to be eternally 
miserable ? If this be true, then, a believer does not 
better his situation, as to Christian feeling, by going 
to heaven. I once saw the idea highly^extolled in an 



CONCLUDING REMARKS. 345' 

account of missionary proceedings — " that a Christian 
could not feel happy so long as he knew that there 
was a single individual of the human race without the 
knowledge and belief of the gospel." This is like a 
Christian in this world. Heaven is then a change for 
the worse; for the eternal torment of innumerable 
beings in hell, is to afford an increase of joy to the 
inhabitants of heaven ! For my own part, I must say, 
that with such feelings, 1 could not be happy in hea- 
ven. U my views, and feelings, and reasonings on 
this subject are wrong, I hold myself in readiness to 
be corrected by an appeal to the Scriptures, by any 
person in the universe of God. 



THE END, 



INDEX TO TEXTS QUOTED AND ILLUSTRATED. 



ch. V. 


GENESIS. 




page. 


ch. V. 
11: 4—8 




page. 
105 


3: 15 






337 


II KINGS. 




3: 24 






248 


23: 10 


19, 104, 259 


12: 13 






181 


18: 26,28 




313 


15: 17 






248 


2 CHRON. 23 : 


10 


102 


19: 20 






181 


28: 3 




104 


37: 35 


IC 


;, 22 


,30, 


36: 6 




104 






35 


., 50 


32: 18 




313 


42: 38 


17, 19,22 


EZRA 3:12 




311 


44: 29 






22 


4: 7 




312 


EXOD. IS 


!: 16 




181 


NEHEM. 23 : 


24 


312 


LEVITICUS. 






ESTHER 8 : 9 




312 


5: 2 






181 


JOB 7 : 9 




24 


18: 21 






105 


11 : 8 




31 


20: 1— 


6, 11 


105, 


181 


14: 13 




22, 50 




NUMBERS. 






17: 13—16 


21, 


22,50 


11: 6 






181 


21 : 13 




27 


16: 30- 


-33 




21 


24: 19 




25 


20: 10 






148 


26: 6 




31 


31 : 28 






181 


30: 33 




44 


DEUTERONOMY. 




PSALM 1 : 5 




23 


32: 22- 


-25 

JOSHUA. 


31, 


154 


6: 5 
9: 17,18 




22,51 
23, 34 


13: 8 


19, 


93, 


102 


16: 10 


17, 18 


, 29, 30 






104, 


211 




35, 


50,68 


18: 16 






104 


18: 5 




30 


RUTH 2 : 


12 


263 


,248 


30: 3 




24 


1 SAM. 2 


; 6 




24 


38 : 1 




23 


28: 19 






45 


41: 7 




25 


2 SAM. 12: 23 




44 


49: 14, 15 




25 


22: 6 


I KINGS. 




30 


65: 15 

57: 4 




30 
181 


2: 6— 


.9 




22 


75: 5 




23 


3: 36- 


-42 




24 


83: 3 




22 



INDEX TO ¥EXtS. 



347 



ch. ▼. 

86: 13 
89: 46- 
106: IJ 
116 : 3 
139: 8 



-48 



page. 

32 

24,50,154 

181 

30 

31 



140: 10—12 248,263 
PROVERBS 1:12 25 

5: 5 31 

7: 27 31 

15: 11,24 31 

24: 12 23 

27: 20 33 

30: 16 26, 50 

33: 13, 14 31 

ECCLES. 3 : 20 44 

9: 10 25, 37,51 

CANT, 8:6 26 

ISAIAH 1 : 31 169 

5: 14,24,25 33,154 

9: 18, 19 154 

I'O: 16, 18 154 

14: 3—24 19 

26: 15, 19 26,56,263 
— : 1—5 248 

28: 15—19 34 

30: 27—33 104,154 

259 
34: 8—11 169 

38: 10—18,30 19,22 
37,50,51 
66: 15, 16 154 

JEREM, 4:4 1 70 

19 104,106,109 

110,112,136,259 

21 : 1 2 ' 1 70 

23: 39, 40 173 

25: 11,12 311 



ch. V. -a 
27 : 22 
29: 10 
32: 35 
LAM. 2 : 3 
EZEK. 16: 20,21 
20: 26—31 
— : 47, 48 
22: 18, 22 
23 : 37—39 
31 : 15—18 
32: 17—32 

DANIEL 9 : 2 

12: 2 

HOSEA 13: 14 
AMOSch. 1, 2 
5: 26 

9: 2 
JONAH 2 : 2 

HABAKUK 2 : 5 
HAGGAI 3 : 2 
MALACHI 3 : 1 7, 18 
MATTH. 2 : 20 



3: 
5: 



10; 



11 

12 

13 

16; 

18 

19; 



8, 9 
5 

22- 



-30 



115 



page. 
311 
ib. 
104 
154 
105 
105 
170 
154 
105 

26, 5B 
33, 56 

311 
42 

27, 48 
154 
105 

Sir 
30 
33 
311 
326 
182 
251 
259 
123 



144, 145,148,153 
190,249,254 
28 115,179,191 



26—39 

23 

40 

42 

18, 28 

3 

8, 9 ^ 

17, 2B 



187,191 

192 

67 

127 

249, 254 

67, 158 

157 

115, 152 

158, 249 



348 



INDEX TO TEXTS. 



ch. 


V. 




page. 


ch. V, 




i^age. 


23: 


13—32 


128 


3: 23 




182 


— : 


15 




115, 126 


7: 43 




105 


— : 


33 


115 


,127,133 


10 




260 






137 


149,155 


11 




ib. 






185, 


235,320 


13: 10, 11 




200 


— : 


35 


109, 


120,171 


— : 41,42 




ib. 


24 




109, 


112,120 


ROMANS 2 




261 






130, 


131, 133 


2: 10 




250 






137, 


149,150 


6: 6 




182 






159, 


191,259 


7: 4 




ib. 


— : 


13 




191 


— : 24 




ib. 


-— : 


21 




22, 109 


13: 1 




ib. 


25: 


41—46 


i 


147, 153 
154,224 


5: 12—21 
1 COR. 5 : 5 




331 
187 


27: 


50 




187 


15: 55 


48 


,66,222 


26: 


73 




314 


15: 24—29 




331 


MARK 9 : 1 




158 


15 




330 


— -: 


42—49 




115, 155 


PHiLTP. 2 : 9 — 


12 


ib. 






183, 


249,254 


coLLOS. 2 : 11 




182 


14: 


73 




314 


1 THESS. 2:16 




112,129 


LUKE 8 : 55 




187 


5: 1—10 




237 


10: 


15 




67 


4; 13 




330 


12: 


1—5 


179, 


191,192 


— : 23 




186 


_. : 


8,9 




192 


HEE. 4:12 




186 


_: 


19,20 




187 


12: 23 




187 


— : 


23 




183 


JAMES 1 




119 


16: 


23 


] 


19,51,78 


3: 6 115, 


119,103 


21: 


22 


109, 


112, 136 


1 PETER 3 : 19, 


20 


182 


— : 


31, 32 




158 






187 


23: 


46 




187 


4: 17—19 




237 


24: 


37—39 




ib. 


2 PETER 2 : 4 




78 


JOHJ 


J JO: 15 




182 


JUDE 7 




153 


^6 : 


1—3 




129 


REV. 1:18 




68 


19: 


30 




187 


6: 8 




69 


ACTS 


2: 23- 


-31 


17, 18 


7: 14—17 




225 




19, 


29,49,67,68 | 


20: 13, 14 




19,225 








185, 188 1 


5: 13 




331 



Ill 



i§i§i' 



'^:/^^:.--* 



r-'cMil?^* 



S^^ 



^^r^K'^-0. 






,.<,^^^;2*- 



























'A^*2M,..^^^ 















J^f^f^^Ps^ M^i 






.:iA^fcyAMki.« 









■??-';^:;x^:SgS 






ym 






^^^^^ffrsm^f^ 



Library of Congress 
Branch -Bindery, 1901 






